Congress attempted to end bimetallism in 1853 by abolishing silver coins, but neglected to mention silver dollars in its bill,
so the country remained on a two-metal standard until a revision of the law in 1873. Advocates of a "free silver" policy --
coinage of silver to gold at a ratio of 16 to 1 -- opposed both measures and defended their position with four arguments:
that the single-standard law of 1873 had been railroaded through Congress; that silver "hard money" was the coin of the common
people; that the Panic of 1873 was brought on by the "demonetization" of silver; and that the institution of a free silver
policy would increase the supply of money and end the depression. These theories had special appeal for the poorer classes
and the economically unsophisticated, and the Democratic Party gave enough support to pass a free silver bill in the Senate
in January 1891. Most observers expected Democrat Grover Cleveland to join the silver cause, but he stated his refusal to
do so in the following letter of February 10, 1891, addressed to E. Ellery Anderson of the Reform Club of New York.

Dear Sir:

I have this afternoon received your note inviting me to attend tomorrow evening the meeting called for the purpose of voicing
the opposition of the businessmen of our city to "the free coinage of silver in the United States."

I shall not be able to attend and address the meeting as you request, but I am glad that the business interests of New York
are at last to be heard on this subject. It surely cannot be necessary for me to make a formal expression of my agreement
with those who believe that the greatest peril would be invited by the adoption of the scheme, embraced in the measure now
pending in Congress, for the unlimited coinage of silver at our mints.

If we have developed an unexpected capacity for the assimilation of a largely increased volume of this currency, and even
if we have demonstrated the usefulness of such an increase, these conditions fall far short of insuring us against disaster
if, in the present situation, we enter upon the dangerous and reckless experiment of free, unlimited, and independent silver
coinage.

Francis Walker Gilmer, a lawyer and author, was one of Jefferson's numerous correspondents in the years after 1812. In the
following letter to Gilmer of June 7, 1816, Jefferson discoursed on the extent to which natural rights must be relinquished
in civil society, and expressed his profound disagreement with the Hobbesian view that justice is conventional only, and not
natural. The letter reflected Jefferson's abiding faith in Republican government, the main if not the sole function of which
was, in his view, to preserve those rights that man has, ideally, in the state of nature.

I received a few days ago from Mr. Du Pont the enclosed manuscript, with permission to read it, and a request, when read,
to forward it to you, in expectation that you would translate it. It is well worthy of publication for the instruction of
our citizens, being profound, sound, and short.

Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare
and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression
on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. Every man is under the natural
duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him. And, no man having
a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial
third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded
that on entering into society we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by one of these texts would lessen much
the labors of our legislators, and lighten equally our municipal codes.

There is a work of the first order of merit . . . by Destutt Tracy on the subject of political economy. . . . In a preliminary
discourse on the origin of the right of property, he coincides much with the principles of the present manuscript; but is
more developed, more demonstrative. He promises a future work on morals, in which I lament to see that he will adopt the principles
of Hobbes, or humiliation to human nature; that the sense of justice and injustice is not derived from our natural organization
but founded on convention only. I lament this the more as he is unquestionably the ablest writer living, on abstract subjects.

Assuming the fact that the earth has been created in time, and, consequently, the dogma of final causes, we yield, of course,
to this short syllogism. Man was created for social intercourse; but social intercourse cannot be maintained without a sense
of justice; then man must have been created with a sense of justice.

There is an error into which most of the speculators on government have fallen, and which the well-known state of society
of our Indians ought, before now, to have corrected. In their hypothesis of the origin of government, they suppose it to have
commenced in the patriarchal or monarchical form. Our Indians are evidently in that state of nature which has passed the association
of a single family; and not yet submitted to the authority of positive laws, or of any acknowledged magistrate. Every man,
with them, is perfectly free to follow his own inclinations. But if, in doing this, he violates the rights of another, if
the case be slight, he is punished by the disesteem of his society, or, as we say, by public opinion; if serious, he is tomahawked
as a dangerous enemy. Their leaders conduct them by the influence of their character only; and they follow or not, as they
please, him of whose character for wisdom or war they have the highest opinion. Hence the origin of the parties among them
adhering to different leaders, and governed by their advice, not by their command.

The Cherokees, the only tribe I know to be contemplating the establishment of regular laws, magistrates, and government, propose
a government of representatives, elected from every town. But of all things, they least think of subjecting themselves to
the will of one man. This, the only instance of actual fact within our knowledge, will be then a beginning by republican,
and not by patriarchal or monarchical government, as speculative writers have generally conjectured.

Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office
of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as
a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what
I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge
of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.

It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable
in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the
latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the
lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict
examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.

Although the fiat of the people has gone forth proclaiming me the Chief Magistrate of this glorious Union, nothing upon their
part remaining to be done, it may be thought that a motive may exist to keep up the delusion under which they may be supposed
to have acted in relation to my principles and opinions; and perhaps there may be some in this assembly who have come here
either prepared to condemn those I shall now deliver, or, approving them, to doubt the sincerity with which they are now uttered.
But the lapse of a few months will confirm or dispel their fears. The outline of principles to govern and measures to be adopted
by an Administration not yet begun will soon be exchanged for immutable history, and I shall stand either exonerated by my
countrymen or classed with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray.
However strong may be my present purpose to realize the expectations of a magnanimous and confiding people, I too well understand
the dangerous temptations to which I shall be exposed from the magnitude of the power which it has been the pleasure of the
people to commit to my hands not to place my chief confidence upon the aid of that Almighty Power which has hitherto protected
me and enabled me to bring to favorable issues other important but still greatly inferior trusts heretofore confided to me
by my country.

The broad foundation upon which our Constitution rests being the people-a breath of theirs having made, as a breath can unmake,
change, or modify it-it can be assigned to none of the great divisions of government but to that of democracy. If such is
its theory, those who are called upon to administer it must recognize as its leading principle the duty of shaping their measures
so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. But with these broad admissions, if we would compare the sovereignty
acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been
considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by
their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal
to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government
by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned the Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst men; that
all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed. The
Constitution of the United States is the instrument containing this grant of power to the several departments composing the
Government. On an examination of that instrument it will be found to contain declarations of power granted and of power withheld.
The latter is also susceptible of division into power which the majority had the right to grant, but which they do not think
proper to intrust to their agents, and that which they could not have granted, not being possessed by themselves. In other
words, there are certain rights possessed by each individual American citizen which in his compact with the others he has
never surrendered. Some of them, indeed, he is unable to surrender, being, in the language of our system, unalienable. The
boasted privilege of a Roman citizen was to him a shield only against a petty provincial ruler, whilst the proud democrat
of Athens would console himself under a sentence of death for a supposed violation of the national faith-which no one understood
and which at times was the subject of the mockery of all-or the banishment from his home, his family, and his country with
or without an alleged cause, that it was the act not of a single tyrant or hated aristocracy, but of his assembled countrymen.
Far different is the power of our sovereignty. It can interfere with no one's faith, prescribe forms of worship for no one's
observance, inflict no punishment but after well-ascertained guilt, the result of investigation under rules prescribed by
the Constitution itself. These precious privileges, and those scarcely less important of giving expression to his thoughts
and opinions, either by writing or speaking, unrestrained but by the liability for injury to others, and that of a full participation
in all the advantages which flow from the Government, the acknowledged property of all, the American citizen derives from
no charter granted by his fellow-man. He claims them because he is himself a man, fashioned by the same Almighty hand as the
rest of his species and entitled to a full share of the blessings with which He has endowed them. Notwithstanding the limited
sovereignty possessed by the people of the United States and the restricted grant of power to the Government which they have
adopted, enough has been given to accomplish all the objects for which it was created. It has been found powerful in war,
and hitherto justice has been administered, and intimate union effected, domestic tranquillity preserved, and personal liberty
secured to the citizen. As was to be expected, however, from the defect of language and the necessarily sententious manner
in which the Constitution is written, disputes have arisen as to the amount of power which it has actually granted or was
intended to grant.

This is more particularly the case in relation to that part of the instrument which treats of the legislative branch, and
not only as regards the exercise of powers claimed under a general clause giving that body the authority to pass all laws
necessary to carry into effect the specified powers, but in relation to the latter also. It is, however, consolatory to reflect
that most of the instances of alleged departure from the letter or spirit of the Constitution have ultimately received the
sanction of a majority of the people. And the fact that many of our statesmen most distinguished for talent and patriotism
have been at one time or other of their political career on both sides of each of the most warmly disputed questions forces
upon us the inference that the errors, if errors there were, are attributable to the intrinsic difficulty in many instances
of ascertaining the intentions of the framers of the Constitution rather than the influence of any sinister or unpatriotic
motive. But the great danger to our institutions does not appear to me to be in a usurpation by the Government of power not
granted by the people, but by the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as
are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of
the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has been always observable that men are less jealous of encroachments
of one department upon another than upon their own reserved rights. When the Constitution of the United States first came
from the hands of the Convention which formed it, many of the sternest republicans of the day were alarmed at the extent of
the power which had been granted to the Federal Government, and more particularly of that portion which had been assigned
to the executive branch. There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative
democracy or republic, and knowing the tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual,
predictions were made that at no very remote period the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy. It would not become
me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized; but as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures
and of men's opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take
this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency
if it really exists and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor, as far as this can be effected by any legitimate
exercise of the power placed in my hands.

I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained
of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution;
others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility
of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this
error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction.
As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and
perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages
who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues
to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than
to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of
power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing
is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting,
nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this
corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying
worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the
part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her
foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent
his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the
Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore
given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term.

But if there is danger to public liberty from the acknowledged defects of the Constitution in the want of limit to the continuance
of the Executive power in the same hands, there is, I apprehend, not much less from a misconstruction of that instrument as
it regards the powers actually given. I can not conceive that by a fair construction any or either of its provisions would
be found to constitute the President a part of the legislative power. It can not be claimed from the power to recommend, since,
although enjoined as a duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every other citizen; and although there
may be something more of confidence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than in the other, in the
obligations of ultimate decision there can be no difference. In the language of the Constitution, "all the legislative powers"
which it grants "are vested in the Congress of the United States." It would be a solecism in language to say that any portion
of these is not included in the whole.

It may be said, indeed, that the Constitution has given to the Executive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body
by refusing to them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that instrument to the judiciary, and yet
the judiciary forms no part of the Legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of power: The Executive
can put his negative upon the acts of the Legislature for other cause than that of want of conformity to the Constitution,
whilst the judiciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the decision of the judiciary is final
in such a case, whereas in every instance where the veto of the Executive is applied it may be overcome by a vote of two-thirds
of both Houses of Congress. The negative upon the acts of the legislative by the executive authority, and that in the hands
of one individual, would seem to be an incongruity in our system. Like some others of a similar character, however, it appears
to be highly expedient, and if used only with the forbearance and in the spirit which was intended by its authors it may be
productive of great good and be found one of the best safeguards to the Union. At the period of the formation of the Constitution
the principle does not appear to have enjoyed much favor in the State governments. It existed but in two, and in one of these
there was a plural executive. If we would search for the motives which operated upon the purely patriotic and enlightened
assembly which framed the Constitution for the adoption of a provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic principle
that the majority should govern, we must reject the idea that they anticipated from it any benefit to the ordinary course
of legislation. They knew too well the high degree of intelligence which existed among the people and the enlightened character
of the State legislatures not to have the fullest confidence that the two bodies elected by them would be worthy representatives
of such constituents, and, of course, that they would require no aid in conceiving and maturing the measures which the circumstances
of the country might require. And it is preposterous to suppose that a thought could for a moment have been entertained that
the President, placed at the capital, in the center of the country, could better understand the wants and wishes of the people
than their own immediate representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with them, often laboring with
them, and bound to them by the triple tie of interest, duty, and affection. To assist or control Congress, then, in its ordinary
legislation could not, I conceive, have been the motive for conferring the veto power on the President. This argument acquires
additional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the first six Presidents-and two of them were members
of the Convention, one presiding over its deliberations and the other bearing a larger share in consummating the labors of
that august body than any other person. But if bills were never returned to Congress by either of the Presidents above referred
to upon the ground of their being inexpedient or not as well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto
was applied upon that of want of conformity to the Constitution or because errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment.

There is another ground for the adoption of the veto principle, which had probably more influence in recommending it to the
Convention than any other. I refer to the security which it gives to the just and equitable action of the Legislature upon
all parts of the Union. It could not but have occurred to the Convention that in a country so extensive, embracing so great
a variety of soil and climate, and consequently of products, and which from the same causes must ever exhibit a great difference
in the amount of the population of its various sections, calling for a great diversity in the employments of the people, that
the legislation of the majority might not always justly regard the rights and interests of the minority, and that acts of
this character might be passed under an express grant by the words of the Constitution, and therefore not within the competency
of the judiciary to declare void; that however enlightened and patriotic they might suppose from past experience the members
of Congress might be, and however largely partaking, in the general, of the liberal feelings of the people, it was impossible
to expect that bodies so constituted should not sometimes be controlled by local interests and sectional feelings. It was
proper, therefore, to provide some umpire from whose situation and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from
such influences might be expected. Such a one was afforded by the executive department constituted by the Constitution. A
person elected to that high office, having his constituents in every section, State, and subdivision of the Union, must consider
himself bound by the most solemn sanctions to guard, protect, and defend the rights of all and of every portion, great or
small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I consider the veto power, therefore, given by the Constitution to the
Executive of the United States solely as a conservative power, to be used only first, to protect the Constitution from violation;
secondly, the people from the effects of hasty legislation where their will has been probably disregarded or not well understood,
and, thirdly, to prevent the effects of combinations violative of the rights of minorities. In reference to the second of
these objects I may observe that I consider it the right and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the Constitution
arising from the general grant of power to Congress to carry into effect the powers expressly given; and I believe with Mr.
Madison that "repeated recognitions under varied circumstances in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches
of the Government, accompanied by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will of the nation," as
affording to the President sufficient authority for his considering such disputed points as settled.

Upward of half a century has elapsed since the adoption of the present form of government. It would be an object more highly
desirable than the gratification of the curiosity of speculative statesmen if its precise situation could be ascertained,
a fair exhibit made of the operations of each of its departments, of the powers which they respectively claim and exercise,
of the collisions which have occurred between them or between the whole Government and those of the States or either of them.
We could then compare our actual condition after fifty years' trial of our system with what it was in the commencement of
its operations and ascertain whether the predictions of the patriots who opposed its adoption or the confident hopes of its
advocates have been best realized. The great dread of the former seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States
would be absorbed by those of the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow
only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended and on the preservation of which they relied as
the last hope of liberty. Without denying that the result to which they looked with so much apprehension is in the way of
being realized, it is obvious that they did not clearly see the mode of its accomplishment. The General Government has seized
upon none of the reserved rights of the States. As far as any open warfare may have gone, the State authorities have amply
maintained their rights. To a casual observer our system presents no appearance of discord between the different members which
compose it. Even the addition of many new ones has produced no jarring. They move in their respective orbits in perfect harmony
with the central head and with each other. But there is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked,
the worst apprehensions of our antifederal patriots will be realized, and not only will the State authorities be overshadowed
by the great increase of power in the executive department of the General Government, but the character of that Government,
if not its designation, be essentially and radically changed. This state of things has been in part effected by causes inherent
in the Constitution and in part by the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself. By making the President
the sole distributer of all the patronage of the Government the framers of the Constitution do not appear to have anticipated
at how short a period it would become a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the State governments. Of
trifling importance at first, it had early in Mr. Jefferson's Administration become so powerful as to create great alarm in
the mind of that patriot from the potent influence it might exert in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise. If
such could have then been the effects of its influence, how much greater must be the danger at this time, quadrupled in amount
as it certainly is and more completely under the control of the Executive will than their construction of their powers allowed
or the forbearing characters of all the early Presidents permitted them to make. But it is not by the extent of its patronage
alone that the executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power
to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country. The Constitution has declared it to be the duty of the President
to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the Commander in Chief of the Armies and Navy of the United States. If
the opinion of the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government which in modern Europe is termed monarchy in
contradistinction to despotism is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our Chief Magistrate to stamp
a monarchical character on our Government but the control of the public finances; and to me it appears strange indeed that
anyone should doubt that the entire control which the President possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public
money, by the power of removal with or without cause, does, for all mischievous purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure
also to his disposal. The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition of the
officer to whose charge it had been committed by a significant allusion to his sword. By a selection of political instruments
for the care of the public money a reference to their commissions by a President would be quite as effectual an argument as
that of Caesar to the Roman knight. I am not insensible of the great difficulty that exists in drawing a proper plan for the
safe-keeping and disbursement of the public revenues, and I know the importance which has been attached by men of great abilities
and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the Treasury from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which
is complained of, but the unhallowed union of the Treasury with the executive department, which has created such extensive
alarm. To this danger to our republican institutions and that created by the influence given to the Executive through the
instrumentality of the Federal officers I propose to apply all the remedies which may be at my command. It was certainly a
great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made the officer at the head of the Treasury Department entirely
independent of the Executive. He should at least have been removable only upon the demand of the popular branch of the Legislature.
I have determined never to remove a Secretary of the Treasury without communicating all the circumstances attending such removal
to both Houses of Congress.

The influence of the Executive in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise through the medium of the public officers
can be effectually checked by renewing the prohibition published by Mr. Jefferson forbidding their interference in elections
further than giving their own votes, and their own independence secured by an assurance of perfect immunity in exercising
this sacred privilege of freemen under the dictates of their own unbiased judgments. Never with my consent shall an officer
of the people, compensated for his services out of their pockets, become the pliant instrument of Executive will.

There is no part of the means placed in the hands of the Executive which might be used with greater effect for unhallowed
purposes than the control of the public press. The maxim which our ancestors derived from the mother country that "the freedom
of the press is the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty" is one of the most precious legacies which they have left
us. We have learned, too, from our own as well as the experience of other countries, that golden shackles, by whomsoever or
by whatever pretense imposed, are as fatal to it as the iron bonds of despotism. The presses in the necessary employment of
the Government should never be used "to clear the guilty or to varnish crime." A decent and manly examination of the acts
of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Upon another occasion I have given my opinion at some length upon the impropriety of Executive interference in the legislation
of Congress-that the article in the Constitution making it the duty of the President to communicate information and authorizing
him to recommend measures was not intended to make him the source in legislation, and, in particular, that he should never
be looked to for schemes of finance. It would be very strange, indeed, that the Constitution should have strictly forbidden
one branch of the Legislature from interfering in the origination of such bills and that it should be considered proper that
an altogether different department of the Government should be permitted to do so. Some of our best political maxims and opinions
have been drawn from our parent isle. There are others, however, which can not be introduced in our system without singular
incongruity and the production of much mischief, and this I conceive to be one. No matter in which of the houses of Parliament
a bill may originate nor by whom introduced-a minister or a member of the opposition-by the fiction of law, or rather of constitutional
principle, the sovereign is supposed to have prepared it agreeably to his will and then submitted it to Parliament for their
advice and consent. Now the very reverse is the case here, not only with regard to the principle, but the forms prescribed
by the Constitution. The principle certainly assigns to the only body constituted by the Constitution (the legislative body)
the power to make laws, and the forms even direct that the enactment should be ascribed to them. The Senate, in relation to
revenue bills, have the right to propose amendments, and so has the Executive by the power given him to return them to the
House of Representatives with his objections. It is in his power also to propose amendments in the existing revenue laws,
suggested by his observations upon their defective or injurious operation. But the delicate duty of devising schemes of revenue
should be left where the Constitution has placed it-with the immediate representatives of the people. For similar reasons
the mode of keeping the public treasure should be prescribed by them, and the further removed it may be from the control of
the Executive the more wholesome the arrangement and the more in accordance with republican principle.

Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended,
appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of
the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation
of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession
of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much
deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury,
it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness
of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and neck toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.

Amongst the other duties of a delicate character which the President is called upon to perform is the supervision of the government
of the Territories of the United States. Those of them which are destined to become members of our great political family
are compensated by their rapid progress from infancy to manhood for the partial and temporary deprivation of their political
rights. It is in this District only where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many
important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. Their only consolation under circumstances of
such deprivation is that of the devoted exterior guards of a camp-that their sufferings secure tranquillity and safety within.
Are there any of their countrymen, who would subject them to greater sacrifices, to any other humiliations than those essentially
necessary to the security of the object for which they were thus separated from their fellow-citizens? Are their rights alone
not to be guaranteed by the application of those great principles upon which all our constitutions are founded? We are told
by the greatest of British orators and statesmen that at the commencement of the War of the Revolution the most stupid men
in England spoke of "their American subjects." Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed of their
subjects in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by any agency of mine. The people of the District
of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when
the Constitution was formed, no words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character.
If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence,
they could neither make nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberties and become the subjects-in other words,
the slaves-of their former fellow-citizens. If this be true-and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea
of his own rights as an American citizen-the grant to Congress of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be
interpreted, so far as respects the aggregate people of the United States, as meaning nothing more than to allow to Congress
the controlling power necessary to afford a free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by
the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted to their peculiar position and wants
and be conformable with their deliberate opinions of their own interests.

I have spoken of the necessity of keeping the respective departments of the Government, as well as all the other authorities
of our country, within their appropriate orbits. This is a matter of difficulty in some cases, as the powers which they respectively
claim are often not defined by any distinct lines. Mischievous, however, in their tendencies as collisions of this kind may
be, those which arise between the respective communities which for certain purposes compose one nation are much more so, for
no such nation can long exist without the careful culture of those feelings of confidence and affection which are the effective
bonds to union between free and confederated states. Strong as is the tie of interest, it has been often found ineffectual.
Men blinded by their passions have been known to adopt measures for their country in direct opposition to all the suggestions
of policy. The alternative, then, is to destroy or keep down a bad passion by creating and fostering a good one, and this
seems to be the corner stone upon which our American political architects have reared the fabric of our Government. The cement
which was to bind it and perpetuate its existence was the affectionate attachment between all its members. To insure the continuance
of this feeling, produced at first by a community of dangers, of sufferings, and of interests, the advantages of each were
made accessible to all. No participation in any good possessed by any member of our extensive Confederacy, except in domestic
government, was withheld from the citizen of any other member. By a process attended with no difficulty, no delay, no expense
but that of removal, the citizen of one might become the citizen of any other, and successively of the whole. The lines, too,
separating powers to be exercised by the citizens of one State from those of another seem to be so distinctly drawn as to
leave no room for misunderstanding. The citizens of each State unite in their persons all the privileges which that character
confers and all that they may claim as citizens of the United States, but in no case can the same persons at the same time
act as the citizen of two separate States, and he is therefore positively precluded from any interference with the reserved
powers of any State but that of which he is for the time being a citizen. He may, indeed, offer to the citizens of other States
his advice as to their management, and the form in which it is tendered is left to his own discretion and sense of propriety.
It may be observed, however, that organized associations of citizens requiring compliance with their wishes too much resemble
the recommendations of Athens to her allies, supported by an armed and powerful fleet. It was, indeed, to the ambition of
the leading States of Greece to control the domestic concerns of the others that the destruction of that celebrated Confederacy,
and subsequently of all its members, is mainly to be attributed, and it is owing to the absence of that spirit that the Helvetic
Confederacy has for so many years been preserved. Never has there been seen in the institutions of the separate members of
any confederacy more elements of discord. In the principles and forms of government and religion, as well as in the circumstances
of the several Cantons, so marked a discrepancy was observable as to promise anything but harmony in their intercourse or
permanency in their alliance, and yet for ages neither has been interrupted. Content with the positive benefits which their
union produced, with the independence and safety from foreign aggression which it secured, these sagacious people respected
the institutions of each other, however repugnant to their own principles and prejudices.

Our Confederacy, fellow-citizens, can only be preserved by the same forbearance. Our citizens must be content with the exercise
of the powers with which the Constitution clothes them. The attempt of those of one State to control the domestic institutions
of another can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, the certain harbingers of disunion, violence, and civil war,
and the ultimate destruction of our free institutions. Our Confederacy is perfectly illustrated by the terms and principles
governing a common copartnership. There is a fund of power to be exercised under the direction of the joint councils of the
allied members, but that which has been reserved by the individual members is intangible by the common Government or the individual
members composing it. To attempt it finds no support in the principles of our Constitution.

It should be our constant and earnest endeavor mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various parts
of our Confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that the agitation by citizens of one part of the Union of a subject
not confided to the General Government, but exclusively under the guardianship of the local authorities, is productive of
no other consequences than bitterness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intended to be advanced.
Of all the great interests which appertain to our country, that of union-cordial, confiding, fraternal union-is by far the
most important, since it is the only true and sure guaranty of all others.

In consequence of the embarrassed state of business and the currency, some of the States may meet with difficulty in their
financial concerns. However deeply we may regret anything imprudent or excessive in the engagements into which States have
entered for purposes of their own, it does not become us to disparage the States governments, nor to discourage them from
making proper efforts for their own relief. On the contrary, it is our duty to encourage them to the extent of our constitutional
authority to apply their best means and cheerfully to make all necessary sacrifices and submit to all necessary burdens to
fulfill their engagements and maintain their credit, for the character and credit of the several States form a part of the
character and credit of the whole country. The resources of the country are abundant, the enterprise and activity of our people
proverbial, and we may well hope that wise legislation and prudent administration by the respective governments, each acting
within its own sphere, will restore former prosperity.

Unpleasant and even dangerous as collisions may sometimes be between the constituted authorities of the citizens of our country
in relation to the lines which separate their respective jurisdictions, the results can be of no vital injury to our institutions
if that ardent patriotism, that devoted attachment to liberty, that spirit of moderation and forbearance for which our countrymen
were once distinguished, continue to be cherished. If this continues to be the ruling passion of our souls, the weaker feeling
of the mistaken enthusiast will be corrected, the Utopian dreams of the scheming politician dissipated, and the complicated
intrigues of the demagogue rendered harmless. The spirit of liberty is the sovereign balm for every injury which our institutions
may receive. On the contrary, no care that can be used in the construction of our Government, no division of powers, no distribution
of checks in its several departments, will prove effectual to keep us a free people if this spirit is suffered to decay; and
decay it will without constant nurture. To the neglect of this duty the best historians agree in attributing the ruin of all
the republics with whose existence and fall their writings have made us acquainted. The same causes will ever produce the
same effects, and as long as the love of power is a dominant passion of the human bosom, and as long as the understandings
of men can be warped and their affections changed by operations upon their passions and prejudices, so long will the liberties
of a people depend on their own constant attention to its preservation. The danger to all well-established free governments
arises from the unwillingness of the people to believe in its existence or from the influence of designing men diverting their
attention from the quarter whence it approaches to a source from which it can never come. This is the old trick of those who
would usurp the government of their country. In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence
of wealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became the master of
the Roman people and the senate under the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the former against the aristocracy
of the latter; Cromwell, in the character of protector of the liberties of the people, became the dictator of England, and
Bolívar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country's liberator. There is, on the contrary, no instance
on record of an extensive and well-established republic being changed into an aristocracy. The tendencies of all such governments
in their decline is to monarchy, and the antagonist principle to liberty there is the spirit of faction-a spirit which assumes
the character and in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like
the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior, seeks to, and were it possible would, impose upon the true and
most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to
whom they have intrusted power. And although there is at times much difficulty in distinguishing the false from the true spirit,
a calm and dispassionate investigation will detect the counterfeit, as well by the character of its operations as the results
that are produced. The true spirit of liberty, although devoted, persevering, bold, and uncompromising in principle, that
secured is mild and tolerant and scrupulous as to the means it employs, whilst the spirit of party, assuming to be that of
liberty, is harsh, vindictive, and intolerant, and totally reckless as to the character of the allies which it brings to the
aid of its cause. When the genuine spirit of liberty animates the body of a people to a thorough examination of their affairs,
it leads to the excision of every excrescence which may have fastened itself upon any of the departments of the government,
and restores the system to its pristine health and beauty. But the reign of an intolerant spirit of party amongst a free people
seldom fails to result in a dangerous accession to the executive power introduced and established amidst unusual professions
of devotion to democracy.

The foregoing remarks relate almost exclusively to matters connected with our domestic concerns. It may be proper, however,
that I should give some indications to my fellow-citizens of my proposed course of conduct in the management of our foreign
relations. I assure them, therefore, that it is my intention to use every means in my power to preserve the friendly intercourse
which now so happily subsists with every foreign nation, and that although, of course, not well informed as to the state of
pending negotiations with any of them, I see in the personal characters of the sovereigns, as well as in the mutual interests
of our own and of the governments with which our relations are most intimate, a pleasing guaranty that the harmony so important
to the interests of their subjects as well as of our citizens will not be interrupted by the advancement of any claim or pretension
upon their part to which our honor would not permit us to yield. Long the defender of my country's rights in the field, I
trust that my fellow-citizens will not see in my earnest desire to preserve peace with foreign powers any indication that
their rights will ever be sacrificed or the honor of the nation tarnished by any admission on the part of their Chief Magistrate
unworthy of their former glory. In our intercourse with our aboriginal neighbors the same liberality and justice which marked
the course prescribed to me by two of my illustrious predecessors when acting under their direction in the discharge of the
duties of superintendent and commissioner shall be strictly observed. I can conceive of no more sublime spectacle, none more
likely to propitiate an impartial and common Creator, than a rigid adherence to the principles of justice on the part of a
powerful nation in its transactions with a weaker and uncivilized people whom circumstances have placed at its disposal.

Before concluding, fellow-citizens, I must say something to you on the subject of the parties at this time existing in our
country. To me it appears perfectly clear that the interest of that country requires that the violence of the spirit by which
those parties are at this time governed must be greatly mitigated, if not entirely extinguished, or consequences will ensue
which are appalling to be thought of.

If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within
the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the
parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror. We have examples of republics where
the love of country and of liberty at one time were the dominant passions of the whole mass of citizens, and yet, with the
continuance of the name and forms of free government, not a vestige of these qualities remaining in the bosoms of any one
of its citizens. It was the beautiful remark of a distinguished English writer that "in the Roman senate Octavius had a party
and Anthony a party, but the Commonwealth had none." Yet the senate continued to meet in the temple of liberty to talk of
the sacredness and beauty of the Commonwealth and gaze at the statues of the elder Brutus and of the Curtii and Decii, and
the people assembled in the forum, not, as in the days of Camillus and the Scipios, to cast their free votes for annual magistrates
or pass upon the acts of the senate, but to receive from the hands of the leaders of the respective parties their share of
the spoils and to shout for one or the other, as those collected in Gaul or Egypt and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger
dividend. The spirit of liberty had fled, and, avoiding the abodes of civilized man, had sought protection in the wilds of
Scythia or Scandinavia; and so under the operation of the same causes and influences it will fly from our Capitol and our
forums. A calamity so awful, not only to our country, but to the world, must be deprecated by every patriot and every tendency
to a state of things likely to produce it immediately checked. Such a tendency has existed-does exist. Always the friend of
my countrymen, never their flatterer, it becomes my duty to say to them from this high place to which their partiality has
exalted me that there exists in the land a spirit hostile to their best interests-hostile to liberty itself. It is a spirit
contracted in its views, selfish in its objects. It looks to the aggrandizement of a few even to the destruction of the interests
of the whole. The entire remedy is with the people. Something, however, may be effected by the means which they have placed
in my hands. It is union that we want, not of a party for the sake of that party, but a union of the whole country for the
sake of the whole country, for the defense of its interests and its honor against foreign aggression, for the defense of those
principles for which our ancestors so gloriously contended. As far as it depends upon me it shall be accomplished. All the
influence that I possess shall be exerted to prevent the formation at least of an Executive party in the halls of the legislative
body. I wish for the support of no member of that body to any measure of mine that does not satisfy his judgment and his sense
of duty to those from whom he holds his appointment, nor any confidence in advance from the people but that asked for by Mr.
Jefferson, "to give firmness and effect to the legal administration of their affairs."

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound
reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious
responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by
the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved
to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest
of our beloved country in all future time.

Fellow-citizens, being fully invested with that high office to which the partiality of my countrymen has called me, I now
take an affectionate leave of you. You will bear with you to your homes the remembrance of the pledge I have this day given
to discharge all the high duties of my exalted station according to the best of my ability, and I shall enter upon their performance
with entire confidence in the support of a just and generous people.

Pierre S. du Pont de Nemours, French economist and father of the founder of the Du Pont powder works in Wilmington, Delaware, was an early supporter of
the French Revolution and a persistent worker in the cause of good relations between France and the United States. He had
dealings with Jefferson from the beginning of the latter's presidency, and corresponded with him for many years. In the spring
of 1816, Du Pont was engaged in writing constitutions for several new South American republics, and he asked his friend's
opinion of representative government. In his reply, written April 24, 1816, Jefferson took the opportunity to expound on his
favorite subject, Republicanism, and explained that in a good government, the enlightened and educated, "the natural aristocracy,"
as he called them, should rule--but not without a check by the people.

Distinguishing between the structure of the government and the moral principles on which you prescribe its administration,
with the latter we concur cordially, with the former we should not. We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally
and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has
been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when,
by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right
to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from
its use or direction more than they him. We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the
society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent, and to delegate
those to which they are not competent to deputies named, and removable for unfaithful conduct, by themselves immediately.

Hence, with us, the people (by which is meant the mass of individuals composing the society) being competent to judge of the
facts occurring in ordinary life, they have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors; but being
unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level, yet competent judges of human character,
they chose for their management representatives, some by themselves immediately, others by electors chosen by themselves.

Thus, our President is chosen by ourselves, directly in practice, for we vote for A as elector only on the condition he will vote for B; our representatives by ourselves immediately; our Senate and judges of law through electors chosen by ourselves. And we believe
that this proximate choice and power of removal is the best security which experience has sanctioned for ensuring an honest
conduct in the functionaries of society. . . .

But when we come to the moral principles on which the government is to be administered, we come to what is proper for all
conditions of society. I meet you there in all the benevolence and rectitude of your native character; and I love myself always
most where I concur most with you. Liberty, truth, probity, honor are declared to be the four cardinal principles of your
society.

I believe with you that morality, compassion, generosity are innate elements of the human constitution; that there exists
a right independent of force; that a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed
to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible
beings; that no one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made
a part of his nature; that justice is the fundamental law of society; that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty
of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society; that action
by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately
and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic; that all governments are more or less republican in proportion
as this principle enters more or less into their composition; and that a government by representation is capable of extension
over a greater surface of country than one of any other form. These, my friend, are the essentials in which you and I agree;
however, in our zeal for their maintenance, we may be perplexed and divaricate as to the structure of society most likely
to secure them. . . .

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of
day. Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection
as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of
all in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by
which it is to be effected.

Senator Hatfield, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Bush, Vice President Mondale, Senator Baker, Speaker O'Neill,
Reverend Moomaw, and my fellow citizens: To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion; and yet,
in the history of our Nation, it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution
routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes
of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.

Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation
in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political
system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your
help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.

The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions.
We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions,
penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of
millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied
a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit,
mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend
is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should
we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?

We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding-we are going to begin to act, beginning
today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they
will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever
needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government
by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself,
then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.
The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected.
It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men
and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and
heal us when we are sick-professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short,
"We the people," this breed called Americans.

Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunity for all
Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back
to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive
work of this "new beginning" and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which
are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America at peace with itself and the world.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government-not the other way around. And this makes us
special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check
and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction
between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to
be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work-work
with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother
it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

If we look to the answer as to why, for so many years, we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was
because here, in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done
before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth.
The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives
that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation
to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe
in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with
all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage,
and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where
to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food
to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter-and they are on both sides of that counter.
There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They
are individuals and families whose taxes support the Government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture,
art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life.

I have used the words "they" and "their" in speaking of these heroes. I could say "you" and "your" because I am addressing
the heroes of whom I speak-you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the
dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.

We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen,
and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient
so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?

Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic "yes." To paraphrase Winston Churchill,
I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy.

In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will
be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow-measured in inches
and feet, not miles-but we will progress. Is it time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its
means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles, there will
be no compromise.

On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr.
Joseph Warren, President of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired
of. . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness
and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."

Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure
happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children, and our children's children.

And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again
be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.

To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and
firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our
friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration
of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it-now or ever.

Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When
action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need
be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral
courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans
do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.

I am told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I am deeply grateful. We are
a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inauguration
Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer.

This is the first time in history that this ceremony has been held, as you have been told, on this West Front of the Capitol.
Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city's special beauty and history. At the end of this open
mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man: George Washington, Father of our country. A man of humility who
came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately
memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence.

And then beyond the Reflecting Pool the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the
meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

Beyond those monuments to heroism is the Potomac River, and on the far shore the sloping hills of Arlington National Cemetery
with its row on row of simple white markers bearing crosses or Stars of David. They add up to only a tiny fraction of the
price that has been paid for our freedom.

Each one of those markers is a monument to the kinds of hero I spoke of earlier. Their lives ended in places called Belleau
Wood, The Argonne, Omaha Beach, Salerno, and halfway around the world on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pork Chop Hill, the Chosin Reservoir,
and in a hundred rice paddies and jungles of a place called Vietnam.

Under one such marker lies a young man-Martin Treptow-who left his job in a small town barber shop in 1917 to go to France
with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under
heavy artillery fire.

We are told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, "My Pledge," he had written these words:
"America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully
and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone."

The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others
were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe
in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which
now confront us.

In the fall of 1865 President Andrew Johnson sent several prominent men, including Carl Schurz, Harvey Watterson, and General
Grant, to tour the South and report to him on the conditions they observed. Schurz's report dwelt on Southern intransigence
and urged a harsher Reconstruction policy in line with the recommendations of Congress. Watterson and Grant, on the other
hand, pointed out that the South was conciliatory and upheld the President's policy. Grant, who left Washington on November
29 and visited major cities in North and South Carolina, and Georgia, sent the following report to the President on December
18.

Sir:

In reply to your note of the 16th instant requesting a report from me giving such information as I may be possessed of coming
within the scope of the inquiries made by the Senate of the United States in their resolution of the 12th instant, I have
the honor to submit the following:

With your approval, and also that of the honorable secretary of war, I left Washington city on the 27th of last month for
the purpose of making a tour of inspection through some of the Southern states, or states lately in rebellion, and to see
what changes were necessary to be made in the disposition of the military forces of the country; how these forces could be
reduced and expenses curtailed, etc.; and to learn, as far as possible, the feelings and intentions of the citizens of those
states toward the general government.

The state of Virginia, being so accessible to Washington city, and information from this quarter, therefore, being readily
obtained, I hastened through the state without conversing or meeting with any of its citizens. In Raleigh, North Carolina,
I spent one day; in Charleston, South Carolina, two days; Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, each one day. Both in traveling and
while stopping, I saw much and conversed freely with the citizens of those states, as well as with officers of the Army who
have been stationed among them. The following are the conclusions come to by me.

I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith. The questions
which have heretofore divided the sentiment of the people of the two sections -- slavery and state's rights, or the right of a state to secede from the Union -- they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal --
arms -- that man can resort to. I was pleased to learn from the leading men whom I met that they not only accepted the decision
arrived at as final but, now that the smoke of battle has cleared away and time has been given for reflection, that this decision
has been a fortunate one for the whole country, they receiving like benefits from it with those who opposed them in the field
and in council.

Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the point of the bayonet throughout the states in rebellion, have
left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that ready obedience to civil authority the American people have generally
been in the habit of yielding. This would render the presence of small garrisons throughout those states necessary until such
time as labor returns to its proper channel and civil authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone, either those
holding places under the government or citizens of the Southern states, who think it practicable to withdraw the military
from the South at present. The white and the black mutually require the protection of the general governments.

There is such universal acquiescence in the authority of the general government throughout the portions of country visited
by me that the mere presence of a military force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain order. The good of
the country and economy require that the force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen (elsewhere in the Southern states than at forts upon the seacoast no force is necessary), should all be white troops. The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning many of them. The presence of black troops, lately slaves, demoralizes
labor, both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a resort for the freedmen for long distances around. White troops
generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small number of them can maintain order in a given district. Colored troops
must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves. It is not the thinking men who would use violence toward any class
of troops sent among them by the general government, but the ignorant in some places might; and the late slave seems to be
imbued with the idea that the property of his late master should, by right, belong to him, or at least should have no protection
from the colored soldier. There is danger of collisions being brought on by such causes.

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the Southern states are anxious to return to self-government
within the Union as soon as possible; that while reconstructing they want and require protection from the government; that
they are in earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and
that if such a course were pointed out they would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater
commingling, at this time, between the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those entrusted with the lawmaking
power.

I did not give the operations of the Freedmen's Bureau that attention I would have done if more time had been at my disposal. Conversations on the subject, however, with officers
connected with the bureau lead me to think that in some of the states its affairs have not been conducted with good judgment
or economy, and that the belief widely spread among the freedmen of the Southern states that the lands of their former owners
will, at least in part, be divided among them has come from the agents of this bureau. This belief is seriously interfering
with the willingness of the freedmen to make contracts for the coming year. In some form the Freedmen's Bureau is an absolute
necessity until civil law is established and enforced, securing to the freedmen their rights and full protection. At present,
however, it is independent of the military establishment of the country and seems to be operated by the different agents of
the bureau according to their individual notions. Everywhere General Howard, the able head of the bureau, made friends by
the just and fair instructions and advice he gave; but the complaint in South Carolina was that when he left, things went
on as before.

Many, perhaps the majority, of the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau advise the freedmen that by their own industry they must
expect to live. To this end they endeavor to secure employment for them and to see that both contracting parties comply with
their engagements. In some instances, I am sorry to say, the freedman's mind does not seem to be disabused of the idea that
a freedman has the right to live without care or provision for the future. The effect of the belief in division of lands is
idleness and accumulation in camps, towns, and cities. In such cases I think it will be found that vice and disease will tend
to the extermination or great reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected that the opinions held by men at the South
for years can be changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require, for a few years, not only laws to protect them but
the fostering care of those who will give them good counsel and on whom they rely.

The Freedmen's Bureau, being separated from the military establishment of the country requires all the expenses of a separate
organization. One does not necessarily know what the other is doing or what orders they are acting under. It seems to me this
could be corrected by regarding every officer on duty with troops in the Southern states as an agent of the Freedmen's Bureau,
and then have all orders, from the head of the bureau sent through department commanders. This would create a responsibility
that would secure uniformity of action throughout all the South; would insure the orders and instructions from the head of
the bureau being carried out, and would relieve from duty and pay a large number of employees of the government.

My fellow countrymen, on this occasion, the oath I have taken before you and before God is not mine alone, but ours together.
We are one nation and one people. Our fate as a nation and our future as a people rest not upon one citizen, but upon all
citizens.

This is the majesty and the meaning of this moment.

For every generation, there is a destiny. For some, history decides. For this generation, the choice must be our own.

Even now, a rocket moves toward Mars. It reminds us that the world will not be the same for our children, or even for ourselves
in a short span of years. The next man to stand here will look out on a scene different from our own, because ours is a time
of change-rapid and fantastic change bearing the secrets of nature, multiplying the nations, placing in uncertain hands new
weapons for mastery and destruction, shaking old values, and uprooting old ways.

Our destiny in the midst of change will rest on the unchanged character of our people, and on their faith.

THE AMERICAN COVENANT

They came here-the exile and the stranger, brave but frightened-to find a place where a man could be his own man. They made
a covenant with this land. Conceived in justice, written in liberty, bound in union, it was meant one day to inspire the hopes
of all mankind; and it binds us still. If we keep its terms, we shall flourish.

JUSTICE AND CHANGE

First, justice was the promise that all who made the journey would share in the fruits of the land.

In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go
hungry. In a land of healing miracles, neighbors must not suffer and die unattended. In a great land of learning and scholars,
young people must be taught to read and write.

For the more than 30 years that I have served this Nation, I have believed that this injustice to our people, this waste of
our resources, was our real enemy. For 30 years or more, with the resources I have had, I have vigilantly fought against it.
I have learned, and I know, that it will not surrender easily.

But change has given us new weapons. Before this generation of Americans is finished, this enemy will not only retreat-it
will be conquered.

Justice requires us to remember that when any citizen denies his fellow, saying, "His color is not mine," or "His beliefs
are strange and different," in that moment he betrays America, though his forebears created this Nation.

LIBERTY AND CHANGE

Liberty was the second article of our covenant. It was self-government. It was our Bill of Rights. But it was more. America
would be a place where each man could be proud to be himself: stretching his talents, rejoicing in his work, important in
the life of his neighbors and his nation.

This has become more difficult in a world where change and growth seem to tower beyond the control and even the judgment of
men. We must work to provide the knowledge and the surroundings which can enlarge the possibilities of every citizen.

The American covenant called on us to help show the way for the liberation of man. And that is today our goal. Thus, if as
a nation there is much outside our control, as a people no stranger is outside our hope.

Change has brought new meaning to that old mission. We can never again stand aside, prideful in isolation. Terrific dangers
and troubles that we once called "foreign" now constantly live among us. If American lives must end, and American treasure
be spilled, in countries we barely know, that is the price that change has demanded of conviction and of our enduring covenant.

Think of our world as it looks from the rocket that is heading toward Mars. It is like a child's globe, hanging in space,
the continents stuck to its side like colored maps. We are all fellow passengers on a dot of earth. And each of us, in the
span of time, has really only a moment among our companions.

How incredible it is that in this fragile existence, we should hate and destroy one another. There are possibilities enough
for all who will abandon mastery over others to pursue mastery over nature. There is world enough for all to seek their happiness
in their own way.

Our Nation's course is abundantly clear. We aspire to nothing that belongs to others. We seek no dominion over our fellow
man, but man's dominion over tyranny and misery. But more is required. Men want to be a part of a common enterprise-a cause
greater than themselves. Each of us must find a way to advance the purpose of the Nation, thus finding new purpose for ourselves.
Without this, we shall become a nation of strangers.

UNION AND CHANGE

The third article was union. To those who were small and few against the wilderness, the success of liberty demanded the strength
of union. Two centuries of change have made this true again.

No longer need capitalist and worker, farmer and clerk, city and countryside, struggle to divide our bounty. By working shoulder
to shoulder, together we can increase the bounty of all. We have discovered that every child who learns, every man who finds
work, every sick body that is made whole-like a candle added to an altar-brightens the hope of all the faithful.

So let us reject any among us who seek to reopen old wounds and to rekindle old hatreds. They stand in the way of a seeking
nation.

Let us now join reason to faith and action to experience, to transform our unity of interest into a unity of purpose. For
the hour and the day and the time are here to achieve progress without strife, to achieve change without hatred-not without
difference of opinion, but without the deep and abiding divisions which scar the union for generations.

THE AMERICAN BELIEF

Under this covenant of justice, liberty, and union we have become a nation-prosperous, great, and mighty. And we have kept
our freedom. But we have no promise from God that our greatness will endure. We have been allowed by Him to seek greatness
with the sweat of our hands and the strength of our spirit.

I do not believe that the Great Society is the ordered, changeless, and sterile battalion of the ants. It is the excitement
of becoming-always becoming, trying, probing, falling, resting, and trying again-but always trying and always gaining.

In each generation, with toil and tears, we have had to earn our heritage again.

If we fail now, we shall have forgotten in abundance what we learned in hardship: that democracy rests on faith, that freedom
asks more than it gives, and that the judgment of God is harshest on those who are most favored.

If we succeed, it will not be because of what we have, but it will be because of what we are; not because of what we own,
but, rather because of what we believe.

For we are a nation of believers. Underneath the clamor of building and the rush of our day's pursuits, we are believers in
justice and liberty and union, and in our own Union. We believe that every man must someday be free. And we believe in ourselves.

Our enemies have always made the same mistake. In my lifetime-in depression and in war-they have awaited our defeat. Each
time, from the secret places of the American heart, came forth the faith they could not see or that they could not even imagine.
It brought us victory. And it will again.

For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached
and the harvest sleeping in the unplowed ground. Is our world gone? We say "Farewell." Is a new world coming? We welcome it-and
we will bend it to the hopes of man.

To these trusted public servants and to my family and those close friends of mine who have followed me down a long, winding
road, and to all the people of this Union and the world, I will repeat today what I said on that sorrowful day in November
1963: "I will lead and I will do the best I can."

But you must look within your own hearts to the old promises and to the old dream. They will lead you best of all.

For myself, I ask only, in the words of an ancient leader: "Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in
before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?"

The programs of most twentieth-century American Presidents have been given slogan-nicknames, either by the Presidents themselves
or by the press, which prefers short phrases that fit headlines. Thus Theodore Roosevelt had his Square Deal, Woodrow Wilson
his New Freedom, FDR his New Deal, Harry Truman his Fair Deal, JFK his New Frontier; Lyndon Johnson outlined his own program
in a speech at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964, naming it the Great Society.

I have come today from the turmoil of your Capitol to the tranquility of your campus to speak about the future of our country.
The purpose of protecting the life of our nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of
our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our success as a nation. For a century we labored to settle and to
subdue a continent. For half a century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty
for all of our people. The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and
elevate our national life and to advance the quality of our American civilization.

Your imagination, your initiative, and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant
of our needs or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For, in your time, we have the
opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are
totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning. The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a
feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the
demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.

It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what it
adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the
quantity of their goods. But, most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished
work; it is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous
products of our labor.

So I want to talk to you today about three places where we begin to build the Great Society -- in our cities, in our countryside,
and in our classrooms. Many of you will live to see the day, perhaps fifty years from now, when there will be 400 million
Americans, four-fifths of them in urban areas. In the remainder of this century, urban population will double, city land will
double, and we will have to build homes, highways, and facilities equal to all those built since this country was first settled.
So, in the next forty years, we must rebuild the entire urban United States.

Aristotle said, "Men come together in cities in order to live, but they remain together in order to live the good life." It
is harder and harder to live the good life in American cities today. The catalog of ills is long: there is the decay of the
centers and the despoiling of the suburbs. There is not enough housing for our people or transportation for our traffic. Open
land is vanishing and old landmarks are violated. Worst of all, expansion is eroding the precious and time-honored values
of community with neighbors and communion with nature. The loss of these values breeds loneliness and boredom and indifference.
Our society will never be great until our cities are great. Today the frontier of imagination and innovation is inside those
cities, and not beyond their borders. New experiments are already going on. It will be the task of your generation to make
the American city a place where future generations will come, not only to live but to live the good life.

I understand that if I stay here tonight I would see that Michigan students are really doing their best to live the good life.
This is the place where the Peace Corps was started. It is inspiring to see how all of you, while you are in this country,
are trying so hard to live at the level of the people.

A second place where we begin to build the Great Society is in our countryside. We have always prided ourselves on being not
only America the strong and America the free but America the beautiful. Today that beauty is in danger. The water we drink,
the food we eat, the very air that we breathe are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded. Our seashores overburdened.
Green fields and dense forests are disappearing.

A few years ago we were greatly concerned about the Ugly American. Today we must act to prevent an Ugly America. For once
the battle is lost, once our natural splendor is destroyed, it can never be recaptured. And once man can no longer walk with
beauty or wonder at nature, his spirit will wither and his sustenance be wasted.

A third place to build the Great Society is in the classrooms of America. There your children's lives will be shaped. Our
society will not be great until every young mind is set free to scan the farthest reaches of thought and imagination. We are
still far from that goal. Today, 8 million adult Americans, more than the entire population of Michigan, have not finished
five years of school. Nearly 20 million have not finished eight years of school. Nearly 54 million, more than one-quarter
of all America, have not even finished high school.

Each year more than 100,000 high-school graduates, with proved ability, do not enter college because they cannot afford it.
And if we cannot educate today's youth, what will we do in 1970 when elementary-school enrollment will be 5 million greater
than 1960? And high-school enrollment will rise by 5 million? College enrollment will increase by more than 3 million? In
many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualified teachers are underpaid, and many
of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must
not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.

But more classrooms and more teachers are not enough. We must seek an educational system which grows in excellence as it grows
in size. This means better training for our teachers. It means preparing youth to enjoy their hours of leisure as well as
their hours of labor. It means exploring new techniques of teaching, to find new ways to stimulate the love of learning and
the capacity for creation.

These are three of the central issues of the Great Society. While our government has many programs directed at those issues,
I do not pretend that we have the full answer to those problems. But I do promise this: We are going to assemble the best
thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America. I intend to establish working
groups to prepare a series of White House conferences and meetings on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education,
and on other emerging challenges. And from these meetings and from this inspiration and from these studies we will begin to
set our course toward the Great Society.

The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it rely solely on the strained resources
of local authority. They require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the national Capitol
and the leaders of local communities.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote: "Every man sent out from his university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time."
Within your lifetime powerful forces, already loosed, will take us toward a way of life beyond the realm of our experience,
almost beyond the bounds of our imagination. For better or for worse, your generation has been appointed by history to deal
with those problems and to lead America toward a new age. You have the chance never before afforded to any people in any age.
You can help build a society where the demands of morality and the needs of the spirit can be realized in the life of the
nation.

So will you join the battle to give every citizen the full equality which God enjoins and the law requires, whatever his belief,
or race, or the color of his skin? Will you join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of
poverty? Will you join in the battle to make it possible for all nations to live in enduring peace as neighbors and not as
mortal enemies? Will you join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation
on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit?

There are those timid souls who say this battle cannot be won, that we are condemned to a soulless wealth. I do not agree.
We have the power to shape the civilization that we want. But we need your will, your labor, your hearts if we are to build
that kind of society.

Those who came to this land sought to build more than just a new country. They sought a free world. So I have come here today
to your campus to say that you can make their vision our reality. Let us from this moment begin our work so that in the future
men will look back and say: It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full
enrichment of his life.

The Spanish government sincerely wished to avoid war with the United States but faced tremendous internal problems coupled with a military
situation in Cuba that had gotten out of control. In an effort to appease the Americans without provoking the wrath of opposition
groups at home, it agreed to two of the main conditions that the United States had laid down as necessary to gain peace in
Cuba: the governor-general of Cuba was instructed by Spain to revoke reconcentration (a brutal policy of committing Cubans
to camps); and the commander of the Spanish army, on April 9, was told to grant an armistice to the insurgents as a prelude
to peace. Although William McKinley knew of these concessions when he went before Congress on April 11, the president had
already decided to heed both popular opinion and the pressure from his fellow Republicans and opt for war. Passages from his
war message are reprinted below.

Obedient to that precept of the Constitution which commands the President to give from time to time to the Congress information
of the state of the Union and to recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,
it becomes my duty now to address your body with regard to the grave crisis that has arisen in the relations of the United
States to Spain by reason of the warfare that for more than three years has raged in the neighboring island of Cuba.

I do so because of the intimate connection of the Cuban question with the state of our own Union and the grave relation the
course which it is now incumbent upon the nation to adopt must needs bear to the traditional policy of our government if it
is to accord with the precepts laid down by the founders of the republic and religiously observed by succeeding administrations
to the present day.

The present revolution is but the successor of other similar insurrections which have occurred in Cuba against the dominion
of Spain, extending over a period of nearly half a century, each of which, during its progress, has subjected the United States
to great effort and expense in enforcing its neutrality laws, caused enormous losses to American trade and commerce, caused
irritation, annoyance, and disturbance among our citizens, and, by the exercise of cruel, barbarous, and uncivilized practices
of warfare, shocked the sensibilities and offended the humane sympathies of our people.

Since the present revolution began in February 1895, this country has seen the fertile domain at our threshold ravaged by
fire and sword, in the course of a struggle unequaled in the history of the island and rarely paralleled as to the numbers
of the combatants and the bitterness of the contest by any revolution of modern times, where a dependent people striving to
be free have been opposed by the power of the sovereign state.

Our people have beheld a once prosperous community reduced to comparative want, its lucrative commerce virtually paralyzed,
its exceptional productiveness diminished, its fields laid waste, its mills in ruins, and its people perishing by tens of
thousands from hunger and destitution. We have found ourselves constrained, in the observance of that strict neutrality which
our laws enjoin, and which the law of nations commands, to police our own waters and watch our own seaports in prevention
of any unlawful act in aid of the Cubans.

Our trade has suffered; the capital invested by our citizens in Cuba has been largely lost, and the temper and forbearance
of our people have been so sorely tried as to beget a perilous unrest among our own citizens, which has inevitably found its
expression from time to time in the national legislature; so that issues wholly external to our own body politic engross attention
and stand in the way of that close devotion to domestic advancement that becomes a self-contained commonwealth, whose primal
maxim has been the avoidance of all foreign entanglements. All this must needs awaken, and has, indeed, aroused the utmost
concern on the part of this government, as well during my predecessor's term as in my own.

In April 1896, the evils from which our country suffered through the Cuban war became so onerous that my predecessor made
an effort to bring about a peace through the mediation of this government in any way that might tend to an honorable adjustment
of the contest between Spain and her revolted colony, on the basis of some effective scheme of self-government for Cuba under
the flag and sovereignty of Spain. It failed through the refusal of the Spanish government then in power to consider any form
of mediation or, indeed, any plan of settlement which did not begin with the actual submission of the insurgents to the mother
country, and then only on such terms as Spain herself might see fit to grant. The war continued unabated. The resistance of
the insurgents was in nowise diminished....

By the time the present administration took office a year ago, reconcentration--so called--had been made effective over the
better part of the four central and western provinces--Santa Clara, Matanzas, Habana, and Pinar del Rio....

In this state of affairs, my administration found itself confronted with the grave problem of its duty. My message of last
December reviewed the situation and narrated the steps taken with a view to relieving its acuteness and opening the way to
some form of honorable settlement. The assassination of the prime minister, Canovas, led to a change of government in Spain.
The former administration, pledged to subjugation without concession, gave place to that of a more liberal party, committed
long in advance to a policy of reform, involving the wider principle of home rule for Cuba and Puerto Rico....

The war in Cuba is of such a nature that short of subjugation or extermination a final military victory for either side seems
impracticable. The alternative lies in the physical exhaustion of the one or the other party, or perhaps of both--a condition
which in effect ended the ten years' war by the truce of Zanjon. The prospect of such a protraction and conclusion of the
present strife is a contingency hardly to be contemplated with equanimity by the civilized world, and least of all by the
United States, affected and injured as we are, deeply and intimately, by its very existence.

Realizing this, it appeared to be my duty, in a spirit of true friendliness, no less to Spain than to the Cubans who have
so much to lose by the prolongation of the struggle, to seek to bring about an immediate termination of the war. To this end
I submitted, on the 27th ultimo, as a result of much representation and correspondence, through the United States minister
at Madrid, propositions to the Spanish government looking to an armistice until October 1 for the negotiation of peace with
the good offices of the President.

In addition, I asked the immediate revocation of the order of reconcentration, so as to permit the people to return to their
farms and the needy to be relieved with provisions and supplies from the United States, cooperating with the Spanish authorities,
so as to afford full relief.

The reply of the Spanish cabinet was received on the night of the 31st ultimo. It offered, as the means to bring about peace
in Cuba, to confide the preparation thereof to the insular parliament, inasmuch as the concurrence of that body would be necessary
to reach a final result, it being, however, understood that the powers reserved by the constitution to the central government
are not lessened or diminished. As the Cuban parliament does not meet until the 4th of May next, the Spanish government would
not object, for its part, to accept at once a suspension of hostilities if asked for by the insurgents from the general in
chief, to whom it would pertain, in such case, to determine the duration and conditions of the armistice.

The propositions submitted by General Woodford and the reply of the Spanish government were both in the form of brief memoranda,
the texts of which are before me, and are substantially in the language above given. The function of the Cuban parliament
in the matter of "preparing" peace and the manner of its doing so are not expressed in the Spanish memorandum; but from General
Woodford's explanatory reports of preliminary discussions preceding the final conference it is understood that the Spanish
government stands ready to give the insular congress full powers to settle the terms of peace with the insurgents--whether
by direct negotiation or indirectly by means of legislation does not appear.

With this last overture in the direction of immediate peace, and its disappointing reception by Spain, the Executive is brought
to the end of his effort.

In my annual message of December last I said:

Of the untried measures there remained only: Recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; recognition of the independence
of Cuba; neutral intervention to end the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contestants, and intervention in
favor of one or the other party. I speak not of forcible annexation, for that cannot be thought of. That, by our code of morality,
would be criminal aggression.

Thereupon I reviewed these alternatives, in the light of President Grant's measured words, uttered in 1875, when, after seven
years of sanguinary, destructive, and cruel hostilities in Cuba, he reached the conclusion that the recognition of the independence
of Cuba was impracticable and indefensible, and that the recognition of belligerence was not warranted by the facts according
to the tests of public law. I commented especially upon the latter aspect of the question, pointing out the inconveniences
and positive dangers of a recognition of belligerence which, while adding to the already onerous burdens of neutrality within
our own jurisdiction, could not in any way extend our influence or effective offices in the territory of hostilities.

Nothing has since occurred to change my view in this regard, and I recognize as fully now as then that the issuance of a proclamation
of neutrality, by which process the so-called recognition of belligerents is published, could, of itself and unattended by
other action, accomplish nothing toward the one end for which we labor--the instant pacification of Cuba and the cessation
of the misery that afflicts the island....

I said in my message of December last, "It is to be seriously considered whether the Cuban insurrection possesses beyond dispute
the attributes of statehood which alone can demand the recognition of belligerency in its favor." The same requirement must
certainly be no less seriously considered when the graver issue of recognizing independence is in question, for no less positive
test can be applied to the greater act than to the lesser; while, on the other hand, the influences and consequences of the
struggle upon the internal policy of the recognizing state, which form important factors when the recognition of belligerency
is concerned, are secondary, if not rightly eliminable, factors when the real question is whether the community claiming recognition
is or is not independent beyond peradventure.

Nor from the standpoint of expediency do I think it would be wise or prudent for this government to recognize at the present
time the independence of the so-called Cuban Republic. Such recognition is not necessary in order to enable the United States
to intervene and pacify the island. To commit this country now to the recognition of any particular government in Cuba might
subject us to embarrassing conditions of international obligation toward the organization so recognized. In case of intervention
our conduct would be subject to the approval or disapproval of such government. We would be required to submit to its direction
and to assume to it the mere relation of a friendly ally.

When it shall appear hereafter that there is within the island a government capable of performing the duties and discharging
the functions of a separate nation, and having, as a matter of fact, the proper forms and attributes of nationality, such
government can be promptly and readily recognized and the relations and interests of the United States with such nation adjusted.

There remain the alternative forms of intervention to end the war, either as an impartial neutral by imposing a rational compromise
between the contestants, or as the active ally of the one party or the other.

As to the first, it is not to be forgotten that during the last few months the relation of the United States has virtually
been one of friendly intervention in many ways, each not of itself conclusive, but all tending to the exertion of a potential
influence toward an ultimate pacific result, just and honorable to all interests concerned. The spirit of all our acts hitherto
has been an earnest, unselfish desire for peace and prosperity in Cuba, untarnished by differences between us and Spain, and
unstained by the blood of American citizens.

The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war, according to the large dictates of humanity and
following many historical precedents where neighboring states have interfered to check the hopeless sacrifices of life by
internecine conflicts beyond their borders, is justifiable on rational grounds. It involves, however, hostile constraint upon
both the parties to the contest as well to enforce a truce as to guide the eventual settlement.

The grounds for such intervention may be briefly summarized as follows:

First, in the cause of humanity and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries now existing
there, and which the parties to the conflict are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate. It is no answer to say this
is all in another country, belonging to another nation, and is therefore none of our business. It is specially our duty, for
it is right at our door.

Second, we owe it to our citizens in Cuba to afford them that protection and indemnity for life and property which no government
there can or will afford, and to that end to terminate the conditions that deprive them of legal protection.

Third, the right to intervene may be justified by the very serious injury to the commerce, trade, and business of our people,
and by the wanton destruction of property and devastation of the island.

Fourth, and which is of the utmost importance, the present condition of affairs in Cuba is a constant menace to our peace,
and entails upon this government an enormous expense. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and with
which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and liberty of our citizens are in constant danger
and their property destroyed and themselves ruined; where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our
very door by warships of a foreign nation, the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether, and
the irritating questions and entanglements thus arising--all these and others that I need not mention, with the resulting
strained relations, are a constant menace to our peace, and compel us to keep on a semiwar footing with a nation with which
we are at peace.

These elements of danger and disorder already pointed out have been strikingly illustrated by a tragic event which has deeply
and justly moved the American people. I have already transmitted to Congress the report of the Naval Court of Inquiry on the
destruction of the battleship Maine in the harbor of Havana during the night of the 15th of February. The destruction of that noble vessel has filled the national
heart with inexpressible horror. Two hundred and fifty-eight brave sailors and marines and two officers of our Navy, reposing
in the fancied security of a friendly harbor, have been hurled to death, grief and want brought to their homes, and sorrow
to the nation.

The Naval Court of Inquiry, which, it is needless to say, commands the unqualified confidence of the government, was unanimous
in its conclusion that the destruction of the Maine was caused by an exterior explosion, that of a submarine mine. It did not assume to place the responsibility. That remains
to be fixed.

In any event, the destruction of the Maine, by whatever exterior cause, is a patent and impressive proof of a state of things in Cuba that is intolerable. That condition
is thus shown to be such that the Spanish government cannot assure safety and security to a vessel of the American Navy in
the harbor of Havana on a mission of peace, and rightfully there....

The long trial has proved that the object for which Spain has waged the war cannot be attained. The fire of insurrection may
flame or may smolder with varying seasons, but it has not been, and it is plain that it cannot be, extinguished by present
methods. The only hope of relief and repose from a condition which can no longer be endured is the enforced pacification of
Cuba. In the name of humanity, in the name of civilization, in behalf of endangered American interests which give us the right
and the duty to speak and to act, the war in Cuba must stop.

In view of these facts and of these considerations, I ask the Congress to authorize and empower the President to take measures
to secure a full and final termination of hostilities between the government of Spain and the people of Cuba, and to secure
in the island the establishment of a stable government, capable of maintaining order and observing its international obligations,
insuring peace and tranquillity and the security of its citizens as well as our own, and to use the military and naval forces
of the United States as may be necessary for these purposes.

And in the interest of humanity and to aid in preserving the lives of the starving people of the island, I recommend that
the distribution of food and supplies be continued, and that an appropriation be made out of the public Treasury to supplement
the charity of our citizens.

The issue is now with the Congress. It is a solemn responsibility. I have exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable
condition of affairs which is at our doors. Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution and the
law, I await your action.

Yesterday, and since the preparation of the foregoing message, official information was received by me that the latest decree
of the queen regent of Spain directs General Blanco, in order to prepare and facilitate peace, to proclaim a suspension of
hostilities, the duration and details of which have not yet been communicated to me.

This fact with every other pertinent consideration will, I am sure, have your just and careful attention in the solemn deliberations
upon which you are about to enter. If this measure attains a successful result, then our aspirations as a Christian, peace-loving
people will be realized. If it fails, it will be only another justification for our contemplated action.

Source: [United States Department of State] Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs of the United States, 1898, pp. 750-760.

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, Senator Cook, Mrs. Eisenhower, and my fellow citizens of this great and
good country we share together:

When we met here four years ago, America was bleak in spirit, depressed by the prospect of seemingly endless war abroad and
of destructive conflict at home.

As we meet here today, we stand on the threshold of a new era of peace in the world.

The central question before us is: How shall we use that peace? Let us resolve that this era we are about to enter will not
be what other postwar periods have so often been: a time of retreat and isolation that leads to stagnation at home and invites
new danger abroad.

Let us resolve that this will be what it can become: a time of great responsibilities greatly borne, in which we renew the
spirit and the promise of America as we enter our third century as a nation.

This past year saw far-reaching results from our new policies for peace. By continuing to revitalize our traditional friendships,
and by our missions to Peking and to Moscow, we were able to establish the base for a new and more durable pattern of relationships
among the nations of the world. Because of America's bold initiatives, 1972 will be long remembered as the year of the greatest
progress since the end of World War II toward a lasting peace in the world.

The peace we seek in the world is not the flimsy peace which is merely an interlude between wars, but a peace which can endure
for generations to come.

It is important that we understand both the necessity and the limitations of America's role in maintaining that peace.

Unless we in America work to preserve the peace, there will be no peace.

Unless we in America work to preserve freedom, there will be no freedom.

But let us clearly understand the new nature of America's role, as a result of the new policies we have adopted over these
past four years.

We shall respect our treaty commitments.

We shall support vigorously the principle that no country has the right to impose its will or rule on another by force.

We shall continue, in this era of negotiation, to work for the limitation of nuclear arms, and to reduce the danger of confrontation
between the great powers.

We shall do our share in defending peace and freedom in the world. But we shall expect others to do their share.

The time has passed when America will make every other nation's conflict our own, or make every other nation's future our
responsibility, or presume to tell the people of other nations how to manage their own affairs.

Just as we respect the right of each nation to determine its own future, we also recognize the responsibility of each nation
to secure its own future.

Just as America's role is indispensable in preserving the world's peace, so is each nation's role indispensable in preserving
its own peace.

Together with the rest of the world, let us resolve to move forward from the beginnings we have made. Let us continue to bring
down the walls of hostility which have divided the world for too long, and to build in their place bridges of understanding-so
that despite profound differences between systems of government, the people of the world can be friends.

Let us build a structure of peace in the world in which the weak are as safe as the strong-in which each respects the right
of the other to live by a different system-in which those who would influence others will do so by the strength of their ideas,
and not by the force of their arms.

Let us accept that high responsibility not as a burden, but gladly-gladly because the chance to build such a peace is the
noblest endeavor in which a nation can engage; gladly, also, because only if we act greatly in meeting our responsibilities
abroad will we remain a great Nation, and only if we remain a great Nation will we act greatly in meeting our challenges at
home.

We have the chance today to do more than ever before in our history to make life better in America-to ensure better education,
better health, better housing, better transportation, a cleaner environment-to restore respect for law, to make our communities
more livable-and to insure the God-given right of every American to full and equal opportunity.

Because the range of our needs is so great-because the reach of our opportunities is so great-let us be bold in our determination
to meet those needs in new ways.

Just as building a structure of peace abroad has required turning away from old policies that failed, so building a new era
of progress at home requires turning away from old policies that have failed.

Abroad, the shift from old policies to new has not been a retreat from our responsibilities, but a better way to peace.

And at home, the shift from old policies to new will not be a retreat from our responsibilities, but a better way to progress.

Abroad and at home, the key to those new responsibilities lies in the placing and the division of responsibility. We have
lived too long with the consequences of attempting to gather all power and responsibility in Washington.

Abroad and at home, the time has come to turn away from the condescending policies of paternalism-of "Washington knows best."

A person can be expected to act responsibly only if he has responsibility. This is human nature. So let us encourage individuals
at home and nations abroad to do more for themselves, to decide more for themselves. Let us locate responsibility in more
places. Let us measure what we will do for others by what they will do for themselves.

That is why today I offer no promise of a purely governmental solution for every problem. We have lived too long with that
false promise. In trusting too much in government, we have asked of it more than it can deliver. This leads only to inflated
expectations, to reduced individual effort, and to a disappointment and frustration that erode confidence both in what government
can do and in what people can do.

Government must learn to take less from people so that people can do more for themselves.

Let us remember that America was built not by government, but by people-not by welfare, but by work-not by shirking responsibility,
but by seeking responsibility.

In our own lives, let each of us ask-not just what will government do for me, but what can I do for myself?

In the challenges we face together, let each of us ask-not just how can government help, but how can I help?

Your National Government has a great and vital role to play. And I pledge to you that where this Government should act, we
will act boldly and we will lead boldly. But just as important is the role that each and every one of us must play, as an
individual and as a member of his own community.

From this day forward, let each of us make a solemn commitment in his own heart: to bear his responsibility, to do his part,
to live his ideals-so that together, we can see the dawn of a new age of progress for America, and together, as we celebrate
our 200th anniversary as a nation, we can do so proud in the fulfillment of our promise to ourselves and to the world.

As America's longest and most difficult war comes to an end, let us again learn to debate our differences with civility and
decency. And let each of us reach out for that one precious quality government cannot provide-a new level of respect for the
rights and feelings of one another, a new level of respect for the individual human dignity which is the cherished birthright
of every American.

Above all else, the time has come for us to renew our faith in ourselves and in America.

In recent years, that faith has been challenged.

Our children have been taught to be ashamed of their country, ashamed of their parents, ashamed of America's record at home
and of its role in the world.

At every turn, we have been beset by those who find everything wrong with America and little that is right. But I am confident
that this will not be the judgment of history on these remarkable times in which we are privileged to live.

America's record in this century has been unparalleled in the world's history for its responsibility, for its generosity,
for its creativity, and for its progress.

Let us be proud that our system has produced and provided more freedom and more abundance, more widely shared, than any other
system in the history of the world.

Let us be proud that in each of the four wars in which we have been engaged in this century, including the one we are now
bringing to an end, we have fought not for our selfish advantage, but to help others resist aggression.

Let us be proud that by our bold, new initiatives, and by our steadfastness for peace with honor, we have made a break-through
toward creating in the world what the world has not known before-a structure of peace that can last, not merely for our time,
but for generations to come.

We are embarking here today on an era that presents challenges great as those any nation, or any generation, has ever faced.

We shall answer to God, to history, and to our conscience for the way in which we use these years.

As I stand in this place, so hallowed by history, I think of others who have stood here before me. I think of the dreams they
had for America, and I think of how each recognized that he needed help far beyond himself in order to make those dreams come
true.

Today, I ask your prayers that in the years ahead I may have God's help in making decisions that are right for America, and
I pray for your help so that together we may be worthy of our challenge.

Let us pledge together to make these next four years the best four years in America's history, so that on its 200th birthday
America will be as young and as vital as when it began, and as bright a beacon of hope for all the world.

Let us go forward from here confident in hope, strong in our faith in one another, sustained by our faith in God who created
us, and striving always to serve His purpose.

As Britain's situation in the war grew more desperate, her ability to pay for needed arms and material rapidly diminished. Following his election to a third
term in November 1940, President Roosevelt determined to find some means of underwriting an Allied victory over Germany without
huge intergovernment loans. In mid-December he hit upon the idea of Lend-Lease; the materials of war would be turned over
to Allied nations now, and would be paid for at the end of the war in goods and services. In a press conference on December
17, Roosevelt outlined in simple terms the underlying premises of the Lend-Lease program. Two weeks later, in an effort to
rally public opinion behind his program, Roosevelt delivered one of his most famous "Fireside Chats"--the "arsenal of democracy"
speech--on December 29, in which he called upon the American people to assume new responsibilities as guardians of the freedom
of the world. A portion of the December 17 press conference is reprinted here.

In the present world situation of course there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of a very overwhelming number of Americans
that the best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Great Britain in defending itself; and that, therefore,
quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy in the world as a whole, it is equally important,
from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help the British Empire to defend itself.
. . .

It isn't merely a question of doing things the traditional way; there are lots of other ways of doing them. I am just talking
background, informally; I haven't prepared any of this--I go back to the idea that the one thing necessary for American national
defense is additional productive facilities; and the more we increase those facilities--factories, shipbuilding ways, munition
plants, et cetera, and so on--the stronger American national defense is.

Orders from Great Britain are therefore a tremendous asset to American national defense because they automatically create
additional facilities. I am talking selfishly, from the American point of view--nothing else. Therefore, from the selfish
point of view, that production must be encouraged by us. There are several ways of encouraging it--not just one, as the narrow-minded
fellow I have been talking about might assume, and has assumed. He has assumed that the only way was to repeal certain existing
statutes, like the Neutrality Act and the old Johnson Act and a few other things like that, and then to lend the money to
Great Britain to be spent over here--either lend it through private banking circles, as was done in the earlier days of the
previous war, or make it a loan from this government to the British government.

Well, that is one type of mind that can think only of that method somewhat banal.

There is another one which is also somewhat banal--we may come to it, I don't know--and that is a gift; in other words, for
us to pay for all these munitions, ships, plants, guns, et cetera, and make a gift of them to Great Britain. I am not at all
sure that that is a necessity, and I am not at all sure that Great Britain would care to have a gift from the taxpayers of
the United States. I doubt it very much.

Well, there are other possible ways, and those ways are being explored. All I can do is to speak in very general terms, because
we are in the middle of it. I have been at it now three or four weeks, exploring other methods of continuing the building
up of our productive facilities and continuing automatically the flow of munitions to Great Britain. I will just put it this
way, not as an exclusive alternative method but as one of several other possible methods that might be devised toward that
end.

It is possible--I will put it that way--for the United States to take over British orders and, because they are essentially
the same kind of munitions that we use ourselves, turn them into American orders. We have enough money to do it. And thereupon,
as to such portion of them as the military events of the future determine to be right and proper for us to allow to go to
the other side, either lease or sell the materials, subject to mortgage, to the people on the other side. That would be on
the general theory that it may still prove true that the best defense of Great Britain is the best defense of the United States,
and therefore that these materials would be more useful to the defense of the United States if they were used in Great Britain
than if they were kept in storage here.

Now, what I am trying to do is to eliminate the dollar sign. That is something brand new in the thoughts of practically everybody
in this room, I think--get rid of the silly, foolish old dollar sign.

Well, let me give you an illustration: Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose 400 or
500 feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now,
what do I do? I don't say to him before that operation, "Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for
it." What is the transaction that goes on? I don't want $15--I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right.
If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for
the use of it. But suppose it gets smashed up--holes in it--during the fire; we don't have to have too much formality about
it, but I say to him, "I was glad to lend you that hose; I see I can't use it any more, it's all smashed up." He says, "How
many feet of it were there?" I tell him, "There were 150 feet of it." He says, "All right, I will replace it." Now, if I get
a nice garden hose back, I am in pretty good shape.

In other words, if you lend certain munitions and get the munitions back at the end of the war, if they are intact--haven't
been hurt--you are all right; if they have been damaged or have deteriorated or have been lost completely, it seems to me
you come out pretty well if you have them replaced by the fellow to whom you have lent them.

I can't go into details; and there is no use asking legal questions about how you would do it, because that is the thing that
is now under study; but the thought is that we would take over not all, but a very large number of, future British orders;
and when they came off the line, whether they were planes or guns or something else, we would enter into some kind of arrangement
for their use by the British on the ground that it was the best thing for American defense, with the understanding that when
the show was over, we would get repaid sometime in kind, thereby leaving out the dollar mark in the form of a dollar debt
and substituting for it a gentleman's obligation to repay in kind. I think you all get it.

George W. Bush: Immigration Reform

The United States has long been referred to as a “melting pot” and a “nation of immigrants.” Despite this, immigration has been a contentious
issue in the country's history, from the clamour of concerned citizens such as famed inventor Samuel F.B. Morse sounding the alarm about the dangers of Irish Catholic immigrants in the 1830s, '40s, and '50s to Henry Cabot Lodge, a U.S. senator who warned against unrestricted immigration in 1896. The topic of immigration and the need for reform resurfaces
repeatedly in the United States. Although many laws have been passed, little has been resolved, and in the early 21st century
the topic of immigration continued to be an issue. In 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that upwards of 12 million foreign
nationals were living illegally in the United States. Of these, it was estimated, more than three-fourths were born in South
or Central America, with more than half of this group coming from Mexico. Many rallies—some drawing as many as half a million people—were held around the country in 2006. Demonstrators demanded
recognition for the positive contributions made by illegal immigrants to the United States and urged that they be given a
way to obtain U.S. citizenship and the rights and protections that accompany it; they opposed immigration-policy legislation
that would not support these goals. Many others, however, objected to the relaxing of immigration policies and claimed that
illegal immigrants were causing more harm than good to the U.S. economy. In the midst of this debate, Pres. George W. Bush delivered a national speech (reprinted below) addressing these issues and outlining his proposal to arrive at an immigration
policy to satisfy both sides.

Good evening. I've asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance—the reform of America's
immigration system.

The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions, and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the
streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others
have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting
images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear
where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete
control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border, and millions
have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it
difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools
and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems. Yet we must
remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their
faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American
law.

We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We're also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition,
which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and
a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system
that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent
requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration,
and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I was a governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border,
and how important it is. Since I became President, we've increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded
the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult
circumstances, and over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America
illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling
on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll
increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more
than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

At the same time, we're launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will
construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We'll employ motion
sensors, infrared cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the
world, and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet
the need to secure our border is urgent. So I'm announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during
this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So, in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard
members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border
Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol
roads, and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities—that duty will be done
by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number
of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans
to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and to help secure our
border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue
to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and
crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities.
So we'll increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions.
We will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain
illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important part of our border security and they need to
be a part of our strategy to secure our borders.

The steps I've outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must
ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal
immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch
illegal immigrants from other country [sic] it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have
enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our
society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called
“catch and release,” is unacceptable, and we will end it.

We're taking several important steps to meet this goal. We've expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and
we will continue to add more. We've expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we're making it clear
to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions,
we've ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding
and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they'll
be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the
other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of
desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our
border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people
trying to sneak across.

Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in
an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers
for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks.
And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their
families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers, and make it less
likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments,
by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by
making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this
country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem
of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work
eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should
use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce
the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work
in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic
path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would
invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts
to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United
States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship
for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes there are differences between
an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family,
and an otherwise clean record.

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for
breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these
conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line
behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I've just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those
who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The
success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans.
Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability
to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers
to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to running offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to
a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams,
they renew our spirit, and they add to the unity of America.

Tonight, I want to speak directly to members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive,
because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed
an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month so we can work out the differences between the two bills,
and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue, and
as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger,
or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real
lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their
citizenship papers say.

I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better
life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work
and sacrifice. As President, I've had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them.
On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant
Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and
then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery
Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. And when asked if he had any requests, he made two: a promotion for the corporal
who helped rescue him, and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and
swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.

We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they've
always been—people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been: the
great hope on the horizon, an open door to the future, a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come
here, no matter where they come from, because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans—one nation under
God.

It is a relief to feel that no heart but my own can know the personal regret and bitter sorrow over which I have been borne
to a position so suitable for others rather than desirable for myself.

The circumstances under which I have been called for a limited period to preside over the destinies of the Republic fill me
with a profound sense of responsibility, but with nothing like shrinking apprehension. I repair to the post assigned me not
as to one sought, but in obedience to the unsolicited expression of your will, answerable only for a fearless, faithful, and
diligent exercise of my best powers. I ought to be, and am, truly grateful for the rare manifestation of the nation's confidence;
but this, so far from lightening my obligations, only adds to their weight. You have summoned me in my weakness; you must
sustain me by your strength. When looking for the fulfillment of reasonable requirements, you will not be unmindful of the
great changes which have occurred, even within the last quarter of a century, and the consequent augmentation and complexity
of duties imposed in the administration both of your home and foreign affairs.

Whether the elements of inherent force in the Republic have kept pace with its unparalleled progression in territory, population,
and wealth has been the subject of earnest thought and discussion on both sides of the ocean. Less than sixty-four years ago
the Father of his Country made "the" then "recent accession of the important State of North Carolina to the Constitution of
the United States" one of the subjects of his special congratulation. At that moment, however, when the agitation consequent
upon the Revolutionary struggle had hardly subsided, when we were just emerging from the weakness and embarrassments of the
Confederation, there was an evident consciousness of vigor equal to the great mission so wisely and bravely fulfilled by our
fathers. It was not a presumptuous assurance, but a calm faith, springing from a clear view of the sources of power in a government
constituted like ours. It is no paradox to say that although comparatively weak the new-born nation was intrinsically strong.
Inconsiderable in population and apparent resources, it was upheld by a broad and intelligent comprehension of rights and
an all-pervading purpose to maintain them, stronger than armaments. It came from the furnace of the Revolution, tempered to
the necessities of the times. The thoughts of the men of that day were as practical as their sentiments were patriotic. They
wasted no portion of their energies upon idle and delusive speculations, but with a firm and fearless step advanced beyond
the governmental landmarks which had hitherto circumscribed the limits of human freedom and planted their standard, where
it has stood against dangers which have threatened from abroad, and internal agitation, which has at times fearfully menaced
at home. They proved themselves equal to the solution of the great problem, to understand which their minds had been illuminated
by the dawning lights of the Revolution. The object sought was not a thing dreamed of; it was a thing realized. They had exhibited
only the power to achieve, but, what all history affirms to be so much more unusual, the capacity to maintain. The oppressed
throughout the world from that day to the present have turned their eyes hitherward, not to find those lights extinguished
or to fear lest they should wane, but to be constantly cheered by their steady and increasing radiance.

In this our country has, in my judgment, thus far fulfilled its highest duty to suffering humanity. It has spoken and will
continue to speak, not only by its words, but by its acts, the language of sympathy, encouragement, and hope to those who
earnestly listen to tones which pronounce for the largest rational liberty. But after all, the most animating encouragement
and potent appeal for freedom will be its own history-its trials and its triumphs. Preeminently, the power of our advocacy
reposes in our example; but no example, be it remembered, can be powerful for lasting good, whatever apparent advantages may
be gained, which is not based upon eternal principles of right and justice. Our fathers decided for themselves, both upon
the hour to declare and the hour to strike. They were their own judges of the circumstances under which it became them to
pledge to each other "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" for the acquisition of the priceless inheritance
transmitted to us. The energy with which that great conflict was opened and, under the guidance of a manifest and beneficent
Providence the uncomplaining endurance with which it was prosecuted to its consummation were only surpassed by the wisdom
and patriotic spirit of concession which characterized all the counsels of the early fathers.

One of the most impressive evidences of that wisdom is to be found in the fact that the actual working of our system has dispelled
a degree of solicitude which at the outset disturbed bold hearts and far-reaching intellects. The apprehension of dangers
from extended territory, multiplied States, accumulated wealth, and augmented population has proved to be unfounded. The stars
upon your banner have become nearly threefold their original number; your densely populated possessions skirt the shores of
the two great oceans; and yet this vast increase of people and territory has not only shown itself compatible with the harmonious
action of the States and Federal Government in their respective constitutional spheres, but has afforded an additional guaranty
of the strength and integrity of both.

With an experience thus suggestive and cheering, the policy of my Administration will not be controlled by any timid forebodings
of evil from expansion. Indeed, it is not to be disguised that our attitude as a nation and our position on the globe render
the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection, if not in the future
essential for the preservation of the rights of commerce and the peace of the world. Should they be obtained, it will be through
no grasping spirit, but with a view to obvious national interest and security, and in a manner entirely consistent with the
strictest observance of national faith. We have nothing in our history or position to invite aggression; we have everything
to beckon us to the cultivation of relations of peace and amity with all nations. Purposes, therefore, at once just and pacific
will be significantly marked in the conduct of our foreign affairs. I intend that my Administration shall leave no blot upon
our fair record, and trust I may safely give the assurance that no act within the legitimate scope of my constitutional control
will be tolerated on the part of any portion of our citizens which can not challenge a ready justification before the tribunal
of the civilized world. An Administration would be unworthy of confidence at home or respect abroad should it cease to be
influenced by the conviction that no apparent advantage can be purchased at a price so dear as that of national wrong or dishonor.
It is not your privilege as a nation to speak of a distant past. The striking incidents of your history, replete with instruction
and furnishing abundant grounds for hopeful confidence, are comprised in a period comparatively brief. But if your past is
limited, your future is boundless. Its obligations throng the unexplored pathway of advancement, and will be limitless as
duration. Hence a sound and comprehensive policy should embrace not less the distant future than the urgent present.

The great objects of our pursuit as a people are best to be attained by peace, and are entirely consistent with the tranquillity
and interests of the rest of mankind. With the neighboring nations upon our continent we should cultivate kindly and fraternal
relations. We can desire nothing in regard to them so much as to see them consolidate their strength and pursue the paths
of prosperity and happiness. If in the course of their growth we should open new channels of trade and create additional facilities
for friendly intercourse, the benefits realized will be equal and mutual. Of the complicated European systems of national
polity we have heretofore been independent. From their wars, their tumults, and anxieties we have been, happily, almost entirely
exempt. Whilst these are confined to the nations which gave them existence, and within their legitimate jurisdiction, they
can not affect us except as they appeal to our sympathies in the cause of human freedom and universal advancement. But the
vast interests of commerce are common to all mankind, and the advantages of trade and international intercourse must always
present a noble field for the moral influence of a great people.

With these views firmly and honestly carried out, we have a right to expect, and shall under all circumstances require, prompt
reciprocity. The rights which belong to us as a nation are not alone to be regarded, but those which pertain to every citizen
in his individual capacity, at home and abroad, must be sacredly maintained. So long as he can discern every star in its place
upon that ensign, without wealth to purchase for him preferment or title to secure for him place, it will be his privilege,
and must be his acknowledged right, to stand unabashed even in the presence of princes, with a proud consciousness that he
is himself one of a nation of sovereigns and that he can not in legitimate pursuit wander so far from home that the agent
whom he shall leave behind in the place which I now occupy will not see that no rude hand of power or tyrannical passion is
laid upon him with impunity. He must realize that upon every sea and on every soil where our enterprise may rightfully seek
the protection of our flag American citizenship is an inviolable panoply for the security of American rights. And in this
connection it can hardly be necessary to reaffirm a principle which should now be regarded as fundamental. The rights, security,
and repose of this Confederacy reject the idea of interference or colonization on this side of the ocean by any foreign power
beyond present jurisdiction as utterly inadmissible.

The opportunities of observation furnished by my brief experience as a soldier confirmed in my own mind the opinion, entertained
and acted upon by others from the formation of the Government, that the maintenance of large standing armies in our country
would be not only dangerous, but unnecessary. They also illustrated the importance-I might well say the absolute necessity-of
the military science and practical skill furnished in such an eminent degree by the institution which has made your Army what
it is, under the discipline and instruction of officers not more distinguished for their solid attainments, gallantry, and
devotion to the public service than for unobtrusive bearing and high moral tone. The Army as organized must be the nucleus
around which in every time of need the strength of your military power, the sure bulwark of your defense-a national militia-may
be readily formed into a well-disciplined and efficient organization. And the skill and self-devotion of the Navy assure you
that you may take the performance of the past as a pledge for the future, and may confidently expect that the flag which has
waved its untarnished folds over every sea will still float in undiminished honor. But these, like many other subjects, will
be appropriately brought at a future time to the attention of the coordinate branches of the Government, to which I shall
always look with profound respect and with trustful confidence that they will accord to me the aid and support which I shall
so much need and which their experience and wisdom will readily suggest.

In the administration of domestic affairs you expect a devoted integrity in the public service and an observance of rigid
economy in all departments, so marked as never justly to be questioned. If this reasonable expectation be not realized, I
frankly confess that one of your leading hopes is doomed to disappointment, and that my efforts in a very important particular
must result in a humiliating failure. Offices can be properly regarded only in the light of aids for the accomplishment of
these objects, and as occupancy can confer no prerogative nor importunate desire for preferment any claim, the public interest
imperatively demands that they be considered with sole reference to the duties to be performed. Good citizens may well claim
the protection of good laws and the benign influence of good government, but a claim for office is what the people of a republic
should never recognize. No reasonable man of any party will expect the Administration to be so regardless of its responsibility
and of the obvious elements of success as to retain persons known to be under the influence of political hostility and partisan
prejudice in positions which will require not only severe labor, but cordial cooperation. Having no implied engagements to
ratify, no rewards to bestow, no resentments to remember, and no personal wishes to consult in selections for official station,
I shall fulfill this difficult and delicate trust, admitting no motive as worthy either of my character or position which
does not contemplate an efficient discharge of duty and the best interests of my country. I acknowledge my obligations to
the masses of my countrymen, and to them alone. Higher objects than personal aggrandizement gave direction and energy to their
exertions in the late canvass, and they shall not be disappointed. They require at my hands diligence, integrity, and capacity
wherever there are duties to be performed. Without these qualities in their public servants, more stringent laws for the prevention
or punishment of fraud, negligence, and peculation will be vain. With them they will be unnecessary.

But these are not the only points to which you look for vigilant watchfulness. The dangers of a concentration of all power
in the general government of a confederacy so vast as ours are too obvious to be disregarded. You have a right, therefore,
to expect your agents in every department to regard strictly the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United
States. The great scheme of our constitutional liberty rests upon a proper distribution of power between the State and Federal
authorities, and experience has shown that the harmony and happiness of our people must depend upon a just discrimination
between the separate rights and responsibilities of the States and your common rights and obligations under the General Government;
and here, in my opinion, are the considerations which should form the true basis of future concord in regard to the questions
which have most seriously disturbed public tranquillity. If the Federal Government will confine itself to the exercise of
powers clearly granted by the Constitution, it can hardly happen that its action upon any question should endanger the institutions
of the States or interfere with their right to manage matters strictly domestic according to the will of their own people.

In expressing briefly my views upon an important subject [which] has recently agitated the nation to almost a fearful degree,
I am moved by no other impulse than a most earnest desire for the perpetuation of that Union which has made us what we are,
showering upon us blessings and conferring a power and influence which our fathers could hardly have anticipated, even with
their most sanguine hopes directed to a far-off future. The sentiments I now announce were not unknown before the expression
of the voice which called me here. My own position upon this subject was clear and unequivocal, upon the record of my words
and my acts, and it is only recurred to at this time because silence might perhaps be misconstrued. With the Union my best
and dearest earthly hopes are entwined. Without it what are we individually or collectively? What becomes of the noblest field
ever opened for the advancement of our race in religion, in government, in the arts, and in all that dignifies and adorns
mankind? From that radiant constellation which both illumines our own way and points out to struggling nations their course,
let but a single star be lost, and, if these be not utter darkness, the luster of the whole is dimmed. Do my countrymen need
any assurance that such a catastrophe is not to overtake them while I possess the power to stay it? It is with me an earnest
and vital belief that as the Union has been the source, under Providence, of our prosperity to this time, so it is the surest
pledge of a continuance of the blessings we have enjoyed, and which we are sacredly bound to transmit undiminished to our
children. The field of calm and free discussion in our country is open, and will always be so, but never has been and never
can be traversed for good in a spirit of sectionalism and uncharitableness. The founders of the Republic dealt with things
as they were presented to them, in a spirit of self-sacrificing patriotism, and, as time has proved, with a comprehensive
wisdom which it will always be safe for us to consult. Every measure tending to strengthen the fraternal feelings of all the
members of our Union has had my heartfelt approbation. To every theory of society or government, whether the offspring of
feverish ambition or of morbid enthusiasm, calculated to dissolve the bonds of law and affection which unite us, I shall interpose
a ready and stern resistance. I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in different States of this Confederacy,
is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists
are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called
the "compromise measures," are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect. I believe that the constituted
authorities of this Republic are bound to regard the rights of the South in this respect as they would view any other legal
and constitutional right, and that the laws to enforce them should be respected and obeyed, not with a reluctance encouraged
by abstract opinions as to their propriety in a different state of society, but cheerfully and according to the decisions
of the tribunal to which their exposition belongs. Such have been, and are, my convictions, and upon them I shall act. I fervently
hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability
of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.

But let not the foundation of our hope rest upon man's wisdom. It will not be sufficient that sectional prejudices find no
place in the public deliberations. It will not be sufficient that the rash counsels of human passion are rejected. It must
be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling
providence.

We have been carried in safety through a perilous crisis. Wise counsels, like those which gave us the Constitution, prevailed
to uphold it. Let the period be remembered as an admonition, and not as an encouragement, in any section of the Union, to
make experiments where experiments are fraught with such fearful hazard. Let it be impressed upon all hearts that, beautiful
as our fabric is, no earthly power or wisdom could ever reunite its broken fragments. Standing, as I do, almost within view
of the green slopes of Monticello, and, as it were, within reach of the tomb of Washington, with all the cherished memories
of the past gathering around me like so many eloquent voices of exhortation from heaven, I can express no better hope for
my country than that the kind Providence which smiled upon our fathers may enable their children to preserve the blessings
they have inherited.

President Hoover attributed the Depression to forces that bore on the United States from without, not to weaknesses in the
American system itself. He had originally intended to conduct a limited campaign for reelection; but as Roosevelt's intentions to alter the economic system became increasingly apparent, he was stirred to political battle. Hoover was constantly
on the defensive during the campaign, celebrating the virtues of individualism and voluntary cooperation while charging that
Roosevelt's promised New Deal was based on "the same philosophy of government which has poisoned all Europe." Hoover's speech
at Madison Square Garden in New York City on October 31, 1932, is reprinted here in part. Like all of his speeches, it was
written by Hoover himself.

This campaign is more than a contest between two men. It is more than a contest between two parties. It is a contest between
two philosophies of government.

We are told by the opposition that we must have a change, that we must have a new deal. It is not the change that comes from
normal development of national life to which I object but the proposal to alter the whole foundations of our national life
which have been builded through generations of testing and struggle, and of the principles upon which we have builded the
nation. The expressions our opponents use must refer to important changes in our economic and social system and our system
of government, otherwise they are nothing but vacuous words. And I realize that in this time of distress many of our people
are asking whether our social and economic system is incapable of that great primary function of providing security and comfort
of life to all of the firesides of our 25 million homes in America, whether our social system provides for the fundamental
development and progress of our people, whether our form of government is capable of originating and sustaining that security
and progress.

This question is the basis upon which our opponents are appealing to the people in their fears and distress. They are proposing
changes and so-called new deals which would destroy the very foundations of our American system.

Our people should consider the primary facts before they come to the judgment--not merely through political agitation, the
glitter of promise, and the discouragement of temporary hardships--whether they will support changes which radically affect
the whole system which has been builded up by 150 years of the toil of our fathers. They should not approach the question
in the despair with which our opponents would clothe it.

Our economic system has received abnormal shocks during the past three years, which temporarily dislocated its normal functioning.
These shocks have in a large sense come from without our borders, but I say to you that our system of government has enabled
us to take such strong action as to prevent the disaster which would otherwise have come to our nation. It has enabled us
further to develop measures and programs which are now demonstrating their ability to bring about restoration and progress.

We must go deeper than platitudes and emotional appeals of the public platform in the campaign if we will penetrate to the
full significance of the changes which our opponents are attempting to float upon the wave of distress and discontent from
the difficulties we are passing through. We can find what our opponents would do after searching the record of their appeals
to discontent, group and sectional interest. We must search for them in the legislative acts which they sponsored and passed
in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives in the last session of Congress. We must look into measures for which
they voted and which were defeated. We must inquire whether or not the presidential and vice-presidential candidates have
disavowed these acts. If they have not, we must conclude that they form a portion and are a substantial indication of the
profound changes proposed.

And we must look still further than this as to what revolutionary changes have been proposed by the candidates themselves.

We must look into the type of leaders who are campaigning for the Democratic ticket, whose philosophies have been well known
all their lives, whose demands for a change in the American system are frank and forceful. I can respect the sincerity of
these men in their desire to change our form of government and our social and economic system, though I shall do my best tonight
to prove they are wrong. I refer particularly to Senator Norris, Senator La Follette, Senator Cutting, Senator Huey Long,
Senator Wheeler, William R. Hearst, and other exponents of a social philosophy different from the traditional American one.
Unless these men feel assurance of support to their ideas, they certainly would not be supporting these candidates and the
Democratic Party. The seal of these men indicates that they have sure confidence that they will have voice in the administration
of our government.

I may say at once that the changes proposed from all these Democratic principals and allies are of the most profound and penetrating
character. If they are brought about, this will not be the America which we have known in the past.

Let us pause for a moment and examine the American system of government, of social and economic life, which it is now proposed
that we should alter. Our system is the product of our race and of our experience in building a nation to heights unparalleled
in the whole history of the world. It is a system peculiar to the American people. It differs essentially from all others
in the world. It is an American system.

It is founded on the conception that only through ordered liberty, through freedom to the individual, and equal opportunity
to the individual will his initiative and enterprise be summoned to spur the march of progress.

It is by the maintenance of equality of opportunity and therefore of a society absolutely fluid in freedom of the movement
of its human particles that our individualism departs from the individualism of Europe. We resent class distinction because
there can be no rise for the individual through the frozen strata of classes, and no stratification of classes can take place
in a mass livened by the free rise of its particles. Thus in our ideals the able and ambitious are able to rise constantly
from the bottom to leadership in the community.

This freedom of the individual creates of itself the necessity and the cheerful willingness of men to act cooperatively in
a thousand ways and for every purpose as occasion arises; and it permits such voluntary cooperations to be dissolved as soon
as they have served their purpose, to be replaced by new voluntary associations for new purposes.

There has thus grown within us, to gigantic importance, a new conception. That is, this voluntary cooperation within the community.
Cooperation to perfect the social organization; cooperation for the care of those in distress; cooperation for the advancement
of knowledge, of scientific research, of education; for cooperative action in the advancement of many phases of economic life.
This is self-government by the people outside of government; it is the most powerful development of individual freedom and
equal opportunity that has taken place in the century and a half since our fundamental institutions were founded.

It is in the further development of this cooperation and a sense of its responsibility that we should find solution for many
of our complex problems, and not by the extension of government into our economic and social life. The greatest function of
government is to build up that cooperation, and its most resolute action should be to deny the extension of bureaucracy. We
have developed great agencies of cooperation by the assistance of the government which promote and protect the interests of
individuals and the smaller units of business. The Federal Reserve System, in its strengthening and support of the smaller
banks; the Farm Board, in its strengthening and support of the farm cooperatives; the Home Loan Banks, in the mobilizing of
building and loan associations and savings banks; the Federal Land Banks, in giving independence and strength to land mortgage
associations; the great mobilization of relief to distress, the mobilization of business and industry in measures of recovery,
and a score of other activities are not socialism--they are the essence of protection to the development of free men.

The primary conception of this whole American system is not the regimentation of men but the cooperation of free men. It is
founded upon the conception of responsibility of the individual to the community, of the responsibility of local government
to the state, of the state to the national government.

It is founded on a peculiar conception of self-government designed to maintain this equal opportunity to the individual, and
through decentralization it brings about and maintains these responsibilities. The centralization of government will undermine
responsibilities and will destroy the system.

Our government differs from all previous conceptions, not only in this decentralization but also in the separation of functions
between the legislative, executive, and judicial arms of government, in which the independence of the judicial arm is the
keystone of the whole structure.

It is founded on a conception that in times of emergency, when forces are running beyond control of individuals or other cooperative
action, beyond the control of local communities and of states, then the great reserve powers of the federal government shall
be brought into action to protect the community. But when these forces have ceased, there must be a return of state, local,
and individual responsibility.

The implacable march of scientific discovery with its train of new inventions presents every year new problems to government
and new problems to the social order. Questions often arise whether, in the face of the growth of these new and gigantic tools,
democracy can remain master in its own house, can preserve the fundamentals of our American system. I contend that it can;
and I contend that this American system of ours has demonstrated its validity and superiority over any other system yet invented
by human mind.

It has demonstrated it in the face of the greatest test of our history--that is the emergency which we have faced in the past
three years.

When the political and economic weakness of many nations of Europe, the result of the World War and its aftermath, finally
culminated in collapse of their institutions, the delicate adjustment of our economic and social life received a shock unparalleled
in our history. No one knows that better than you of New York. No one knows its causes better than you. That the crisis was
so great that many of the leading banks sought directly or indirectly to convert their assets into gold or its equivalent
with the result that they practically ceased to function as credit institutions; that many of our citizens sought flight for
their capital to other countries; that many of them attempted to hoard gold in large amounts. These were but indications of
the flight of confidence and of the belief that our government could not overcome these forces.

Yet these forces were overcome--perhaps by narrow margins--and this action demonstrates what the courage of a nation can accomplish
under the resolute leadership in the Republican Party. And I say the Republican Party, because our opponents, before and during
the crisis, proposed no constructive program; though some of their members patriotically supported ours. Later on the Democratic
House of Representatives did develop the real thought and ideas of the Democratic Party, but it was so destructive that it
had to be defeated, for it would have destroyed, not healed.

In spite of all these obstructions, we did succeed. Our form of government did prove itself equal to the task. We saved this
nation from a quarter of a century of chaos and degeneration, and we preserved the savings, the insurance policies, gave a
fighting chance to men to hold their homes. We saved the integrity of our government and the honesty of the American dollar.
And we installed measures which today are bringing back recovery. Employment, agriculture, business--all of these show the
steady, if slow, healing of our enormous wound.

I therefore contend that the problem of today is to continue these measures and policies to restore this American system to
its normal functioning, to repair the wounds it has received, to correct the weaknesses and evils which would defeat that
system. To enter upon a series of deep changes, to embark upon this inchoate new deal which has been propounded in this campaign,
would be to undermine and destroy our American system.

Source: The State Papers and Other Public Writings of Herbert Hoover, vol. 2, William S. Myers, ed., 1934, pp. 408-413.

No one can contemplate current conditions without finding much that is satisfying and still more that is encouraging. Our
own country is leading the world in the general readjustment to the results of the great conflict. Many of its burdens will
bear heavily upon us for years, and the secondary and indirect effects we must expect to experience for some time. But we
are beginning to comprehend more definitely what course should be pursued, what remedies ought to be applied, what actions
should be taken for our deliverance, and are clearly manifesting a determined will faithfully and conscientiously to adopt
these methods of relief. Already we have sufficiently rearranged our domestic affairs so that confidence has returned, business
has revived, and we appear to be entering an era of prosperity which is gradually reaching into every part of the Nation.
Realizing that we can not live unto ourselves alone, we have contributed of our resources and our counsel to the relief of
the suffering and the settlement of the disputes among the European nations. Because of what America is and what America has
done, a firmer courage, a higher hope, inspires the heart of all humanity.

These results have not occurred by mere chance. They have been secured by a constant and enlightened effort marked by many
sacrifices and extending over many generations. We can not continue these brilliant successes in the future, unless we continue
to learn from the past. It is necessary to keep the former experiences of our country both at home and abroad continually
before us, if we are to have any science of government. If we wish to erect new structures, we must have a definite knowledge
of the old foundations. We must realize that human nature is about the most constant thing in the universe and that the essentials
of human relationship do not change. We must frequently take our bearings from these fixed stars of our political firmament
if we expect to hold a true course. If we examine carefully what we have done, we can determine the more accurately what we
can do.

We stand at the opening of the one hundred and fiftieth year since our national consciousness first asserted itself by unmistakable
action with an array of force. The old sentiment of detached and dependent colonies disappeared in the new sentiment of a
united and independent Nation. Men began to discard the narrow confines of a local charter for the broader opportunities of
a national constitution. Under the eternal urge of freedom we became an independent Nation. A little less than 50 years later
that freedom and independence were reasserted in the face of all the world, and guarded, supported, and secured by the Monroe
Doctrine. The narrow fringe of States along the Atlantic seaboard advanced its frontiers across the hills and plains of an
intervening continent until it passed down the golden slope to the Pacific. We made freedom a birthright. We extended our
domain over distant islands in order to safeguard our own interests and accepted the consequent obligation to bestow justice
and liberty upon less favored peoples. In the defense of our own ideals and in the general cause of liberty we entered the
Great War. When victory had been fully secured, we withdrew to our own shores unrecompensed save in the consciousness of duty
done.

Throughout all these experiences we have enlarged our freedom, we have strengthened our independence. We have been, and propose
to be, more and more American. We believe that we can best serve our own country and most successfully discharge our obligations
to humanity by continuing to be openly and candidly, intensely and scrupulously, American. If we have any heritage, it has
been that. If we have any destiny, we have found it in that direction.

But if we wish to continue to be distinctively American, we must continue to make that term comprehensive enough to embrace
the legitimate desires of a civilized and enlightened people determined in all their relations to pursue a conscientious and
religious life. We can not permit ourselves to be narrowed and dwarfed by slogans and phrases. It is not the adjective, but
the substantive, which is of real importance. It is not the name of the action, but the result of the action, which is the
chief concern. It will be well not to be too much disturbed by the thought of either isolation or entanglement of pacifists
and militarists. The physical configuration of the earth has separated us from all of the Old World, but the common brotherhood
of man, the highest law of all our being, has united us by inseparable bonds with all humanity. Our country represents nothing
but peaceful intentions toward all the earth, but it ought not to fail to maintain such a military force as comports with
the dignity and security of a great people. It ought to be a balanced force, intensely modern, capable of defense by sea and
land, beneath the surface and in the air. But it should be so conducted that all the world may see in it, not a menace, but
an instrument of security and peace.

This Nation believes thoroughly in an honorable peace under which the rights of its citizens are to be everywhere protected.
It has never found that the necessary enjoyment of such a peace could be maintained only by a great and threatening array
of arms. In common with other nations, it is now more determined than ever to promote peace through friendliness and good
will, through mutual understandings and mutual forbearance. We have never practiced the policy of competitive armaments. We
have recently committed ourselves by covenants with the other great nations to a limitation of our sea power. As one result
of this, our Navy ranks larger, in comparison, than it ever did before. Removing the burden of expense and jealousy, which
must always accrue from a keen rivalry, is one of the most effective methods of diminishing that unreasonable hysteria and
misunderstanding which are the most potent means of fomenting war. This policy represents a new departure in the world. It is a thought, an ideal, which has led to an entirely new line of
action. It will not be easy to maintain. Some never moved from their old positions, some are constantly slipping back to the
old ways of thought and the old action of seizing a musket and relying on force. America has taken the lead in this new direction,
and that lead America must continue to hold. If we expect others to rely on our fairness and justice we must show that we
rely on their fairness and justice.

If we are to judge by past experience, there is much to be hoped for in international relations from frequent conferences and consultations. We have before us the beneficial results of the Washington conference and the
various consultations recently held upon European affairs, some of which were in response to our suggestions and in some of
which we were active participants. Even the failures can not but be accounted useful and an immeasurable advance over threatened
or actual warfare. I am strongly in favor of continuation of this policy, whenever conditions are such that there is even
a promise that practical and favorable results might be secured.

In conformity with the principle that a display of reason rather than a threat of force should be the determining factor in
the intercourse among nations, we have long advocated the peaceful settlement of disputes by methods of arbitration and have
negotiated many treaties to secure that result. The same considerations should lead to our adherence to the Permanent Court
of International Justice. Where great principles are involved, where great movements are under way which promise much for
the welfare of humanity by reason of the very fact that many other nations have given such movements their actual support,
we ought not to withhold our own sanction because of any small and inessential difference, but only upon the ground of the
most important and compelling fundamental reasons. We can not barter away our independence or our sovereignty, but we ought
to engage in no refinements of logic, no sophistries, and no subterfuges, to argue away the undoubted duty of this country
by reason of the might of its numbers, the power of its resources, and its position of leadership in the world, actively and
comprehensively to signify its approval and to bear its full share of the responsibility of a candid and disinterested attempt
at the establishment of a tribunal for the administration of even-handed justice between nation and nation. The weight of
our enormous influence must be cast upon the side of a reign not of force but of law and trial, not by battle but by reason.

We have never any wish to interfere in the political conditions of any other countries. Especially are we determined not to
become implicated in the political controversies of the Old World. With a great deal of hesitation, we have responded to appeals
for help to maintain order, protect life and property, and establish responsible government in some of the small countries
of the Western Hemisphere. Our private citizens have advanced large sums of money to assist in the necessary financing and
relief of the Old World. We have not failed, nor shall we fail to respond, whenever necessary to mitigate human suffering
and assist in the rehabilitation of distressed nations. These, too, are requirements which must be met by reason of our vast
powers and the place we hold in the world.

Some of the best thought of mankind has long been seeking for a formula for permanent peace. Undoubtedly the clarification
of the principles of international law would be helpful, and the efforts of scholars to prepare such a work for adoption by
the various nations should have our sympathy and support. Much may be hoped for from the earnest studies of those who advocate
the outlawing of aggressive war. But all these plans and preparations, these treaties and covenants, will not of themselves
be adequate. One of the greatest dangers to peace lies in the economic pressure to which people find themselves subjected.
One of the most practical things to be done in the world is to seek arrangements under which such pressure may be removed,
so that opportunity may be renewed and hope may be revived. There must be some assurance that effort and endeavor will be
followed by success and prosperity. In the making and financing of such adjustments there is not only an opportunity, but
a real duty, for America to respond with her counsel and her resources. Conditions must be provided under which people can
make a living and work out of their difficulties. But there is another element, more important than all, without which there
can not be the slightest hope of a permanent peace. That element lies in the heart of humanity. Unless the desire for peace
be cherished there, unless this fundamental and only natural source of brotherly love be cultivated to its highest degree,
all artificial efforts will be in vain. Peace will come when there is realization that only under a reign of law, based on
righteousness and supported by the religious conviction of the brotherhood of man, can there be any hope of a complete and
satisfying life. Parchment will fail, the sword will fail, it is only the spiritual nature of man that can be triumphant.

It seems altogether probable that we can contribute most to these important objects by maintaining our position of political
detachment and independence. We are not identified with any Old World interests. This position should be made more and more
clear in our relations with all foreign countries. We are at peace with all of them. Our program is never to oppress, but
always to assist. But while we do justice to others, we must require that justice be done to us. With us a treaty of peace
means peace, and a treaty of amity means amity. We have made great contributions to the settlement of contentious differences
in both Europe and Asia. But there is a very definite point beyond which we can not go. We can only help those who help themselves.
Mindful of these limitations, the one great duty that stands out requires us to use our enormous powers to trim the balance
of the world.

While we can look with a great deal of pleasure upon what we have done abroad, we must remember that our continued success
in that direction depends upon what we do at home. Since its very outset, it has been found necessary to conduct our Government
by means of political parties. That system would not have survived from generation to generation if it had not been fundamentally sound and provided the
best instrumentalities for the most complete expression of the popular will. It is not necessary to claim that it has always
worked perfectly. It is enough to know that nothing better has been devised. No one would deny that there should be full and
free expression and an opportunity for independence of action within the party. There is no salvation in a narrow and bigoted
partisanship. But if there is to be responsible party government, the party label must be something more than a mere device
for securing office. Unless those who are elected under the same party designation are willing to assume sufficient responsibility
and exhibit sufficient loyalty and coherence, so that they can cooperate with each other in the support of the broad general
principles, of the party platform, the election is merely a mockery, no decision is made at the polls, and there is no representation
of the popular will. Common honesty and good faith with the people who support a party at the polls require that party, when
it enters office, to assume the control of that portion of the Government to which it has been elected. Any other course is
bad faith and a violation of the party pledges.

When the country has bestowed its confidence upon a party by making it a majority in the Congress, it has a right to expect
such unity of action as will make the party majority an effective instrument of government. This Administration has come into
power with a very clear and definite mandate from the people. The expression of the popular will in favor of maintaining our
constitutional guarantees was overwhelming and decisive. There was a manifestation of such faith in the integrity of the courts
that we can consider that issue rejected for some time to come. Likewise, the policy of public ownership of railroads and
certain electric utilities met with unmistakable defeat. The people declared that they wanted their rights to have not a political
but a judicial determination, and their independence and freedom continued and supported by having the ownership and control
of their property, not in the Government, but in their own hands. As they always do when they have a fair chance, the people
demonstrated that they are sound and are determined to have a sound government.

When we turn from what was rejected to inquire what was accepted, the policy that stands out with the greatest clearness is
that of economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation. The principle involved in this effort is that
of conservation. The resources of this country are almost beyond computation. No mind can comprehend them. But the cost of
our combined governments is likewise almost beyond definition. Not only those who are now making their tax returns, but those
who meet the enhanced cost of existence in their monthly bills, know by hard experience what this great burden is and what
it does. No matter what others may want, these people want a drastic economy. They are opposed to waste. They know that extravagance
lengthens the hours and diminishes the rewards of their labor. I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money,
but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government.
Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently
save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.

If extravagance were not reflected in taxation, and through taxation both directly and indirectly injuriously affecting the
people, it would not be of so much consequence. The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy.
Fortunately, of all the great nations this country is best in a position to adopt that simple remedy. We do not any longer
need wartime revenues. The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt
contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this republic the rewards of industry belong
to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country
belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need
to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required
to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the
action of their own representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do
not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.

The time is arriving when we can have further tax reduction, when, unless we wish to hamper the people in their right to earn
a living, we must have tax reform. The method of raising revenue ought not to impede the transaction of business; it ought
to encourage it. I am opposed to extremely high rates, because they produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for
the country, and, finally, because they are wrong. We can not finance the country, we can not improve social conditions, through
any system of injustice, even if we attempt to inflict it upon the rich. Those who suffer the most harm will be the poor.
This country believes in prosperity. It is absurd to suppose that it is envious of those who are already prosperous. The wise
and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured
success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful. The verdict of the country
has been given on this question. That verdict stands. We shall do well to heed it.

These questions involve moral issues. We need not concern ourselves much about the rights of property if we will faithfully
observe the rights of persons. Under our institutions their rights are supreme. It is not property but the right to hold property,
both great and small, which our Constitution guarantees. All owners of property are charged with a service. These rights and
duties have been revealed, through the conscience of society, to have a divine sanction. The very stability of our society
rests upon production and conservation. For individuals or for governments to waste and squander their resources is to deny
these rights and disregard these obligations. The result of economic dissipation to a nation is always moral decay.

These policies of better international understandings, greater economy, and lower taxes have contributed largely to peaceful
and prosperous industrial relations. Under the helpful influences of restrictive immigration and a protective tariff, employment
is plentiful, the rate of pay is high, and wage earners are in a state of contentment seldom before seen. Our transportation
systems have been gradually recovering and have been able to meet all the requirements of the service. Agriculture has been
very slow in reviving, but the price of cereals at last indicates that the day of its deliverance is at hand.

We are not without our problems, but our most important problem is not to secure new advantages but to maintain those which
we already possess. Our system of government made up of three separate and independent departments, our divided sovereignty
composed of Nation and State, the matchless wisdom that is enshrined in our Constitution, all these need constant effort and
tireless vigilance for their protection and support.

In a republic the first rule for the guidance of the citizen is obedience to law. Under a despotism the law may be imposed upon the subject.
He has no voice in its making, no influence in its administration, it does not represent him. Under a free government the
citizen makes his own laws, chooses his own administrators, which do represent him. Those who want their rights respected
under the Constitution and the law ought to set the example themselves of observing the Constitution and the law. While there
may be those of high intelligence who violate the law at times, the barbarian and the defective always violate it. Those who
disregard the rules of society are not exhibiting a superior intelligence, are not promoting freedom and independence, are
not following the path of civilization, but are displaying the traits of ignorance, of servitude, of savagery, and treading
the way that leads back to the jungle.

The essence of a republic is representative government. Our Congress represents the people and the States. In all legislative
affairs it is the natural collaborator with the President. In spite of all the criticism which often falls to its lot, I do
not hesitate to say that there is no more independent and effective legislative body in the world. It is, and should be, jealous
of its prerogative. I welcome its cooperation, and expect to share with it not only the responsibility, but the credit, for
our common effort to secure beneficial legislation.

These are some of the principles which America represents. We have not by any means put them fully into practice, but we have
strongly signified our belief in them. The encouraging feature of our country is not that it has reached its destination,
but that it has overwhelmingly expressed its determination to proceed in the right direction. It is true that we could, with
profit, be less sectional and more national in our thought. It would be well if we could replace much that is only a false
and ignorant prejudice with a true and enlightened pride of race. But the last election showed that appeals to class and nationality
had little effect. We were all found loyal to a common citizenship. The fundamental precept of liberty is toleration. We can
not permit any inquisition either within or without the law or apply any religious test to the holding of office. The mind
of America must be forever free.

It is in such contemplations, my fellow countrymen, which are not exhaustive but only representative, that I find ample warrant
for satisfaction and encouragement. We should not let the much that is to do obscure the much which has been done. The past
and present show faith and hope and courage fully justified. Here stands our country, an example of tranquillity at home,
a patron of tranquillity abroad. Here stands its Government, aware of its might but obedient to its conscience. Here it will
continue to stand, seeking peace and prosperity, solicitous for the welfare of the wage earner, promoting enterprise, developing
waterways and natural resources, attentive to the intuitive counsel of womanhood, encouraging education, desiring the advancement
of religion, supporting the cause of justice and honor among the nations. America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and
force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed,
not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human,
but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.

California and Mexico

On December 7, 1847, in his third annual message to Congress, which is reprinted here in part, President James K. Polk reiterated the minimal territorial objectives for which the United States had originally gone to war with Mexico. New Mexico and the Californias (divided into upper and lower at that time), as Polk had instructed special envoy Nicholas
Trist in June to insist upon, were the only bases for an honourable peace. Trist, however, failed to negotiate a treaty and
was recalled to the United States in October. By the time Polk was addressing Congress, sentiment in favor of annexing all
of Mexico had increased, partly because the Mexicans had refused Trist's terms but also because of the ease with which the
army had overrun Mexico. Had another envoy been sent at this time, it is likely that he would have gone demanding additional
territory, but Trist refused to resign, stayed on in Mexico as an unauthorized agent, and in February 1848 negotiated a treaty
that conformed to his original instructions. Polk was reluctant to change the treaty once he had it in hand, and on May 30
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was ratified. Trist, however, was repudiated and Polk refused to pay his salary and expenses.

A state of war abrogates treaties previously existing between the belligerents, and a treaty of peace puts an end to all claims
for indemnity for tortious acts committed under the authority of one government against the citizens or subjects of another,
unless they are provided for in its stipulations. A treaty of peace which would terminate the existing war without providing
for indemnity would enable Mexico, the acknowledged debtor and herself the aggressor in the war, to relieve herself from her
just liabilities. By such a treaty our citizens who hold just demands against her would have no remedy either against Mexico
or their own government. Our duty to these citizens must forever prevent such a peace, and no treaty which does not provide
ample means of discharging these demands can receive my sanction.

A treaty of peace should settle all existing differences between the two countries. If an adequate cession of territory should
be made by such a treaty, the United States should release Mexico from all her liabilities and assume their payment to our
own citizens. If instead of this the United States were to consent to a treaty by which Mexico should again engage to pay
the heavy amount of indebtedness which a just indemnity to our government and our citizens would impose on her, it is notorious
that she does not possess the means to meet such an undertaking. From such a treaty no result could be anticipated but the
same irritating disappointments which have heretofore attended the violations of similar treaty stipulations on the part of
Mexico. Such a treaty would be but a temporary cessation of hostilities, without the restoration of the friendship and good
understanding which should characterize the future intercourse between the two countries.

That Congress contemplated the acquisition of territorial indemnity when that body made provision for the prosecution of the
war is obvious. Congress could not have meant, when in May 1846, they appropriated $10 million and authorized the President
to employ the militia and naval and military forces of the United States and to accept the services of 50,000 volunteers to
enable him to prosecute the war, and when, at their last session, and after our Army had invaded Mexico, they made additional
appropriations and authorized the raising of additional troops for the same purpose, that no indemnity was to be obtained
from Mexico at the conclusion of the war; and yet it was certain that if no Mexican territory was acquired, no indemnity could
be obtained.

It is further manifest that Congress contemplated territorial indemnity from the fact that at their last session an act was
passed, upon the executive recommendation, appropriating $3 million with that express object. This appropriation was made
"to enable the President to conclude a treaty of peace, limits, and boundaries with the Republic of Mexico, to be used by
him in the event that said treaty, when signed by the authorized agents of the two governments and duly ratified by Mexico,
shall call for the expenditure of the same or any part thereof." The object of asking this appropriation was distinctly stated
in the several messages on the subject which I communicated to Congress. Similar appropriations made in 1803 and 1806, which
were referred to, were intended to be applied in part consideration for the cession of Louisiana and the Floridas.

In like manner it was anticipated that in settling the terms of a treaty of "limits and boundaries" with Mexico a cession
of territory estimated to be of greater value than the amount of our demands against her might be obtained, and that the prompt
payment of this sum in part consideration for the territory ceded, on the conclusion of a treaty and its ratification on her
part, might be an inducement with her to make such a cession of territory as would be satisfactory to the United States; and
although the failure to conclude such a treaty has rendered it unnecessary to use any part of the $3 million appropriated
by that act, and the entire sum remains in the treasury, it is still applicable to that object should the contingency occur
making such application proper.

The doctrine of no territory is the doctrine of no indemnity, and if sanctioned would be a public acknowledgment that our
country was wrong and that the war declared by Congress with extraordinary unanimity was unjust and should be abandoned —
an admission unfounded in fact and degrading to the national character.

The terms of the treaty proposed by the United States were not only just to Mexico but, considering the character and amount
of our claims, the unjustifiable and unprovoked commencement of hostilities by her, the expenses of the war to which we have
been subjected, and the success which had attended our arms, were deemed to be of a most liberal character.

The commissioner of the United States was authorized to agree to the establishment of the Rio Grande as the boundary from
its entrance into the Gulf, to its intersection with the southern boundary of New Mexico, in north latitude about 32°, and
to obtain a cession to the United States of the provinces of New Mexico and the Californias and the privilege of the right
of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The boundary of the Rio Grande and the cession to the United States of New Mexico
and Upper California constituted an ultimatum which our commissioner was under no circumstances to yield.

That it might be manifest, not only to Mexico but to all other nations, that the United States were not disposed to take advantage
of a feeble power by insisting upon wresting from her all the other provinces, including many of her principal towns and cities
which we had conquered and held in our military occupation, but were willing to conclude a treaty in a spirit of liberality,
our commissioner was authorized to stipulate for the restoration to Mexico of all our other conquests.

As the territory to be acquired by the boundary proposed might be estimated to be of greater value than a fair equivalent
for our just demands, our commissioner was authorized to stipulate for the payment of such additional pecuniary consideration
as was deemed reasonable.

The terms of a treaty proposed by the Mexican commissioners were wholly inadmissible. They negotiated as if Mexico were the
victorious, and not the vanquished party. They must have known that their ultimatum could never be accepted. It required the
United States to dismember Texas by surrendering to Mexico that part of the territory of that state lying between the Nueces
and the Rio Grande, included within her limits by her laws when she was an independent republic, and when she was annexed
to the United States and admitted by Congress as one of the states of our Union.

It contained no provision for the payment by Mexico of the just claims of our citizens. It required indemnity to Mexican citizens
for injuries they may have sustained by our troops in the prosecution of the war. It demanded the right for Mexico to levy
and collect the Mexican tariff of duties on goods imported into her ports while in our military occupation during the war,
and the owners of which had paid to officers of the United States the military contributions which had been levied upon them;
and it offered to cede to the United States, for a pecuniary consideration, that part of Upper California lying north of latitude
37°. Such were the unreasonable terms proposed by the Mexican commissioners.

The cession to the United States by Mexico of the provinces of New Mexico and the Californias, as proposed by the commissioner
of the United States, it was believed would be more in accordance with the convenience and interests of both nations than
any other cession of territory which it was probable Mexico could be induced to make.

It is manifest to all who have observed the actual condition of the Mexican government, for some years past and at present,
that if these provinces should be retained by her she could not long continue to hold and govern them. Mexico is too feeble
a power to govern these provinces, lying as they do at a distance of more than 1,000 miles from her capital; and if attempted
to be retained by her they would constitute but for a short time even nominally a part of her dominions. This would be especially
the case with Upper California.

The sagacity of powerful European nations has long since directed their attention to the commercial importance of that province,
and there can be little doubt that the moment the United States shall relinquish their present occupation of it and their
claim to it as indemnity, an effort would be made by some foreign power to possess it, either by conquest or by purchase.
If no foreign government should acquire it in either of these modes, an independent revolutionary government would probably
be established by the inhabitants and such foreigners as may remain in or remove to the country as soon as it shall be known
that the United States have abandoned it. Such a government would be too feeble long to maintain its separate independent
existence, and would finally become annexed to or be a dependent colony of some more powerful state.

Should any foreign government attempt to possess it as a colony, or otherwise to incorporate it with itself — the principle
avowed by President Monroe in 1824 and reaffirmed in my first annual message — that no foreign power shall with our consent
be permitted to plant or establish any new colony or dominion on any part of the North American continent must be maintained.
In maintaining this principle and in resisting its invasion by any foreign power, we might be involved in other wars more
expensive and more difficult than that in which we are now engaged.

The provinces of New Mexico and the Californias are contiguous to the territories of the United States, and if brought under
the government of our laws their resources — mineral, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial — would soon be developed.

Upper California is bounded on the north by our Oregon possessions, and if held by the United States would soon be settled
by a hardy, enterprising, and intelligent portion of our population. The bay of San Francisco and other harbors along the
Californian coast would afford shelter for our Navy, for our numerous whale ships, and other merchant vessels employed in
the Pacific Ocean, and would in a short period become the marts of an extensive and profitable commerce with China and other
countries of the East.

These advantages, in which the whole commercial world would participate, would at once be secured to the United States by
the cession of this territory; while it is certain that as long as it remains a part of the Mexican dominions they can be
enjoyed neither by Mexico herself nor by any other nation.…

In proposing to acquire New Mexico and the Californias, it was known that but an inconsiderable portion of the Mexican people
would be transferred with them, the country embraced within these provinces being chiefly an uninhabited region.

These were the leading considerations which induced me to authorize the terms of peace which were proposed to Mexico. They
were rejected, and negotiations being at an end, hostilities were renewed. An assault was made by our gallant Army upon the
strongly fortified places near the gates of the city of Mexico and upon the city itself, and after several days of severe
conflict the Mexican forces, vastly superior in number to our own, were driven from the city, and it was occupied by our troops.

Immediately after information was received of the unfavorable result of the negotiations, believing that his continued presence
with the Army could be productive of no good, I determined to recall our commissioner. A dispatch to this effect was transmitted
to him on the 6th of October last. The Mexican government will be informed of his recall, and that in the existing state of
things I shall not deem it proper to make any further overtures of peace, but shall be at all times ready to receive and consider
any proposals which may be made by Mexico.

Since the liberal proposition of the United States was authorized to be made, in April last, large expenditures have been
incurred and the precious blood of many of our patriotic fellow citizens has been shed in the prosecution of the war. This
consideration and the obstinate perseverance of Mexico in protracting the war must influence the terms of peace which it may
be deemed proper hereafter to accept.

Our arms having been everywhere victorious, having subjected to our military occupation a large portion of the enemy's country,
including his capital; and negotiations for peace having failed, the important questions arise, in what manner the war ought
to be prosecuted and what should be our future policy. I cannot doubt that we should secure and render available the conquests
which we have already made, and that with this view we should hold and occupy by our naval and military forces all the ports,
towns, cities, and provinces now in our occupation or which may hereafter fall into our possession; that we should press forward
our military operations and levy such military contributions on the enemy as may, as far as practicable, defray the future
expenses of the war.

Had the government of Mexico acceded to the equitable and liberal terms proposed, that mode of adjustment would have been
preferred. Mexico having declined to do this and failed to offer any other terms which could be accepted by the United States,
the national honor, no less than the public interests, requires that the war should be prosecuted with increased energy and
power until a just and satisfactory peace can be obtained. In the meantime, as Mexico refuses all indemnity, we should adopt
measures to indemnify ourselves by appropriating permanently a portion of her territory.

Early after the commencement of the war, New Mexico and the Californias were taken possession of by our forces. Our military
and naval commanders were ordered to conquer and hold them, subject to be disposed of by a treaty of peace. These provinces
are now in our undisputed occupation, and have been so for many months, all resistance on the part of Mexico having ceased
within their limits. I am satisfied that they should never be surrendered to Mexico. Should Congress concur with me in this
opinion, and that they should be retained by the United States as indemnity, I can perceive no good reason why the civil jurisdiction
and laws of the United States should not at once be extended over them.

To wait for a treaty of peace such as we are willing to make, by which our relations toward them would not be changed, cannot
be good policy; while our own interest and that of the people inhabiting them require that a stable, responsible, and free
government under our authority should as soon as possible be established over them. Should Congress, therefore, determine
to hold these provinces permanently, and that they shall hereafter be considered as constituent parts of our country, the
early establishment of territorial governments over them will be important for the more perfect protection of persons and
property; and I recommend that such territorial governments be established. It will promote peace and tranquillity among the
inhabitants, by allaying all apprehension that they may still entertain of being again subjected to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
I invite the early and favorable consideration of Congress to this important subject.

General Taylor never surrenders.Thomas L. Crittenden, reply, on behalf of General Zachary Taylor, at the Battle of Buena Vista, Feb. 22, 1847, when summoned
to surrender by General Santa Anna.The phrase became the slogan of the presidential campaign of 1848, when Taylor was elected.

In March 2008, in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. presidency, Barack Obama came under fire for his association with Jeremiah Wright, the fiery minister of Obama's church, Trinity United Church of
Christ, on the South Side of Chicago. As particularly inflammatory segments of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube and sound bites were broadcast on many radio stations, Obama denounced his pastor's statements. When that strategy proved
ineffective, he delivered the following speech on race in America, which was at least in part an effort to contextualize Wright's remarks. In a series of appearances in April,
Wright himself effectively rejected Obama's efforts to ease anxieties about him, and the then-senator was forced to give up
his church membership. Nevertheless, Obama's discourse on race proved a remarkably nuanced and thoughtful essay on a topic
that has divided the United States from the time of the country's settlement.

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty-one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these
simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had
traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of
slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave
trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution—a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people
liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and
creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive
generations who were willing to do their part—through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil
war and civil disobedience and always at great risk—to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of
their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign—to continue the long march of those who came before
us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency
at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together—unless
we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the
same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction—towards a better future for
our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my
own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was
overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to
a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners—an inheritance we pass on to our two precious
daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country
on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup
the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts—that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people
were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding
victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have
deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the
South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in
terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly
divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other
end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential
not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly
offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some,
nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course.
Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree
with many of his political views? Absolutely—just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or
rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's
effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country—a view
that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America;
a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged
at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems—two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy,
a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements
of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another
church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless
loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt
that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce
me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up
the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years
led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth—by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy,
providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into
the rafters.... And in that single note—hope!—I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches
across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories—of survival, and freedom, and
hope—became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on
this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.
Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories
and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study
and cherish—and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black
community in its entirety—the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches,
Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and
shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence
and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black
experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family
to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have
I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy
and respect. He contains within him the contradictions—the good and the bad—of the community that he has served diligently
for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother—a
woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything
in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than
one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I
suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We
can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that
Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America—to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point
that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities
of race in this country that we've never really worked through—a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we
walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges
like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial
injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American
community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal
legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black
and white students.

Legalized discrimination—where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted
to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access F[ederal] H[ousing] A[dministration] mortgages,
or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments—meant that black families could not amass any
meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and
white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persist in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for
one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families—a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.
And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods—parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular
garbage pick-up and building code enforcement—all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt
us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the
late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.
What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds;
how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make
it—those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future
generations—those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons,
without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories
of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may
not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around
the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for
a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people
are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated
hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention
from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American
community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply
wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists
between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't
feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience—as far as they're
concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only
to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures,
and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a
zero-sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town;
when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because
of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods
are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped
shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan
Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk-show hosts and conservative commentators
built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality
as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits
of the middle class squeeze—a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term
greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And
yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they
are grounded in legitimate concerns—this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my
critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single
election cycle, or with a single candidacy—particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction—a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people—that working
together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the
path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past.
It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our
particular grievances—for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs—to the larger aspirations of all Americans—the
white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
And it means taking full responsibility for own lives—by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our
children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives,
they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American—and yes, conservative—notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend
Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also
requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as
if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country—a country that has made it possible for one
of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich
and poor, young and old—is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know—what we have seen—is that America can
change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope—the audacity to hope—for what
we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community
does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination—and current incidents of discrimination,
while less overt than in the past—are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds—by investing in our
schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing
this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize
that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of
black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand—that
we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's
keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle
race only as spectacle—as we did in the O.J. trial—or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina—or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them
from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow
believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one.
And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want
to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and
Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't
learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do
not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take
them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and
the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want
to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that
the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed
together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized
and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families,
and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans
want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.
And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next
generation—the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particular that I'd like to leave you with today—a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking
on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina.
She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she
was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was
let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something
to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and
really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign
was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems
were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't.
She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign.
They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man
who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific
issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there
because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I'm here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black
man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course
of the two-hundred and twenty-one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection
begins.

Anyone who has taken the oath I have just taken must feel a heavy weight of responsibility. If not, he has no conception of
the powers and duties of the office upon which he is about to enter, or he is lacking in a proper sense of the obligation
which the oath imposes.

The office of an inaugural address is to give a summary outline of the main policies of the new administration, so far as
they can be anticipated. I have had the honor to be one of the advisers of my distinguished predecessor, and, as such, to
hold up his hands in the reforms he has initiated. I should be untrue to myself, to my promises, and to the declarations of
the party platform upon which I was elected to office, if I did not make the maintenance and enforcement of those reforms
a most important feature of my administration. They were directed to the suppression of the lawlessness and abuses of power
of the great combinations of capital invested in railroads and in industrial enterprises carrying on interstate commerce.
The steps which my predecessor took and the legislation passed on his recommendation have accomplished much, have caused a
general halt in the vicious policies which created popular alarm, and have brought about in the business affected a much higher
regard for existing law.

To render the reforms lasting, however, and to secure at the same time freedom from alarm on the part of those pursuing proper
and progressive business methods, further legislative and executive action are needed. Relief of the railroads from certain
restrictions of the antitrust law have been urged by my predecessor and will be urged by me. On the other hand, the administration
is pledged to legislation looking to a proper federal supervision and restriction to prevent excessive issues of bonds and
stock by companies owning and operating interstate commerce railroads.

Then, too, a reorganization of the Department of Justice, of the Bureau of Corporations in the Department of Commerce and
Labor, and of the Interstate Commerce Commission, looking to effective cooperation of these agencies, is needed to secure
a more rapid and certain enforcement of the laws affecting interstate railroads and industrial combinations.

I hope to be able to submit at the first regular session of the incoming Congress, in December next, definite suggestions
in respect to the needed amendments to the antitrust and the interstate commerce law and the changes required in the executive
departments concerned in their enforcement.

It is believed that with the changes to be recommended American business can be assured of that measure of stability and certainty
in respect to those things that may be done and those that are prohibited which is essential to the life and growth of all
business. Such a plan must include the right of the people to avail themselves of those methods of combining capital and effort
deemed necessary to reach the highest degree of economic efficiency, at the same time differentiating between combinations
based upon legitimate economic reasons and those formed with the intent of creating monopolies and artificially controlling
prices.

The work of formulating into practical shape such changes is creative word of the highest order, and requires all the deliberation
possible in the interval. I believe that the amendments to be proposed are just as necessary in the protection of legitimate
business as in the clinching of the reforms which properly bear the name of my predecessor.

A matter of most pressing importance is the revision of the tariff. In accordance with the promises of the platform upon which
I was elected, I shall call Congress into extra session to meet on the 15th day of March, in order that consideration may
be at once given to a bill revising the Dingley Act. This should secure an adequate revenue and adjust the duties in such
a manner as to afford to labor and to all industries in this country, whether of the farm, mine, or factory, protection by
tariff equal to the difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production here, and have a provision
which shall put into force, upon executive determination of certain facts, a higher or maximum tariff against those countries
whose trade policy toward us equitably requires such discrimination. It is thought that there has been such a change in conditions
since the enactment of the Dingley Act, drafted on a similarly protective principle, that the measure of the tariff above
stated will permit the reduction of rates in certain schedules and will require the advancement of few, if any.

The proposal to revise the tariff made in such an authoritative way as to lead the business community to count upon it necessarily
halts all those branches of business directly affected; and as these are most important, it disturbs the whole business of
the country. It is imperatively necessary, therefore, that a tariff bill be drawn in good faith in accordance with promises
made before the election by the party in power, and as promptly passed as due consideration will permit. It is not that the
tariff is more important in the long run than the perfecting of the reforms in respect to antitrust legislation and interstate
commerce regulation, but the need for action when the revision of the tariff has been determined upon is more immediate to
avoid embarrassment of business. To secure the needed speed in the passage of the tariff bill, it would seem wise to attempt
no other legislation at the extra session. I venture this as a suggestion only, for the course to be taken by Congress, upon
the call of the Executive, is wholly within its discretion.

In the mailing of a tariff bill the prime motive is taxation and the securing thereby of a revenue. Due largely to the business
depression which followed the financial panic of 1907, the revenue from customs and other sources has decreased to such an
extent that the expenditures for the current fiscal year will exceed the receipts by $100,000,000. It is imperative that such
a deficit shall not continue, and the framers of the tariff bill must, of course, have in mind the total revenues likely to
be produced by it and so arrange the duties as to secure an adequate income. Should it be impossible to do so by import duties,
new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among these I recommend a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and
as certain and easy of collection.

The obligation on the part of those responsible for the expenditures made to carry on the Government, to be as economical
as possible, and to make the burden of taxation as light as possible, is plain, and should be affirmed in every declaration
of government policy. This is especially true when we are face to face with a heavy deficit. But when the desire to win the
popular approval leads to the cutting off of expenditures really needed to make the Government effective and to enable it
to accomplish its proper objects, the result is as much to be condemned as the waste of government funds in unnecessary expenditure.
The scope of a modern government in what it can and ought to accomplish for its people has been widened far beyond the principles
laid down by the old "laissez faire" school of political writers, and this widening has met popular approval.

In the Department of Agriculture the use of scientific experiments on a large scale and the spread of information derived
from them for the improvement of general agriculture must go on.

The importance of supervising business of great railways and industrial combinations and the necessary investigation and prosecution
of unlawful business methods are another necessary tax upon Government which did not exist half a century ago.

The putting into force of laws which shall secure the conservation of our resources, so far as they may be within the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government, including the most important work of saving and restoring our forests and the great improvement
of waterways, are all proper government functions which must involve large expenditure if properly performed. While some of
them, like the reclamation of arid lands, are made to pay for themselves, others are of such an indirect benefit that this
cannot be expected of them. A permanent improvement, like the Panama Canal, should be treated as a distinct enterprise, and
should be paid for by the proceeds of bonds, the issue of which will distribute its cost between the present and future generations
in accordance with the benefits derived. It may well be submitted to the serious consideration of Congress whether the deepening
and control of the channel of a great river system, like that of the Ohio or of the Mississippi, when definite and practical
plans for the enterprise have been approved and determined upon, should not be provided for in the same way.

Then, too, there are expenditures of Government absolutely necessary if our country is to maintain its proper place among
the nations of the world, and is to exercise its proper influence in defense of its own trade interests in the maintenance
of traditional American policy against the colonization of European monarchies in this hemisphere, and in the promotion of
peace and international morality. I refer to the cost of maintaining a proper army, a proper navy, and suitable fortifications
upon the mainland of the United States and in its dependencies.

We should have an army so organized and so officered as to be capable in time of emergency, in cooperation with the national
militia and under the provisions of a proper national volunteer law, rapidly to expand into a force sufficient to resist all
probable invasion from abroad and to furnish a respectable expeditionary force if necessary in the maintenance of our traditional
American policy which bears the name of President Monroe.

Our fortifications are yet in a state of only partial completeness, and the number of men to man them is insufficient. In
a few years however, the usual annual appropriations for our coast defenses, both on the mainland and in the dependencies,
will make them sufficient to resist all direct attack, and by that time we may hope that the men to man them will be provided
as a necessary adjunct. The distance of our shores from Europe and Asia of course reduces the necessity for maintaining under
arms a great army, but it does not take away the requirement of mere prudence-that we should have an army sufficiently large
and so constituted as to form a nucleus out of which a suitable force can quickly grow.

What has been said of the army may be affirmed in even a more emphatic way of the navy. A modern navy can not be improvised.
It must be built and in existence when the emergency arises which calls for its use and operation. My distinguished predecessor
has in many speeches and messages set out with great force and striking language the necessity for maintaining a strong navy
commensurate with the coast line, the governmental resources, and the foreign trade of our Nation; and I wish to reiterate
all the reasons which he has presented in favor of the policy of maintaining a strong navy as the best conservator of our
peace with other nations, and the best means of securing respect for the assertion of our rights, the defense of our interests,
and the exercise of our influence in international matters.

Our international policy is always to promote peace. We shall enter into any war with a full consciousness of the awful consequences
that it always entails, whether successful or not, and we, of course, shall make every effort consistent with national honor
and the highest national interest to avoid a resort to arms. We favor every instrumentality, like that of the Hague Tribunal
and arbitration treaties made with a view to its use in all international controversies, in order to maintain peace and to
avoid war. But we should be blind to existing conditions and should allow ourselves to become foolish idealists if we did
not realize that, with all the nations of the world armed and prepared for war, we must be ourselves in a similar condition,
in order to prevent other nations from taking advantage of us and of our inability to defend our interests and assert our
rights with a strong hand.

In the international controversies that are likely to arise in the Orient growing out of the question of the open door and
other issues the United States can maintain her interests intact and can secure respect for her just demands. She will not
be able to do so, however, if it is understood that she never intends to back up her assertion of right and her defense of
her interest by anything but mere verbal protest and diplomatic note. For these reasons the expenses of the army and navy
and of coast defenses should always be considered as something which the Government must pay for, and they should not be cut
off through mere consideration of economy. Our Government is able to afford a suitable army and a suitable navy. It may maintain
them without the slightest danger to the Republic or the cause of free institutions, and fear of additional taxation ought
not to change a proper policy in this regard.

The policy of the United States in the Spanish war and since has given it a position of influence among the nations that it
never had before, and should be constantly exerted to securing to its bona fide citizens, whether native or naturalized, respect
for them as such in foreign countries. We should make every effort to prevent humiliating and degrading prohibition against
any of our citizens wishing temporarily to sojourn in foreign countries because of race or religion.

The admission of Asiatic immigrants who cannot be amalgamated with our population has been made the subject either of prohibitory
clauses in our treaties and statutes or of strict administrative regulation secured by diplomatic negotiation. I sincerely
hope that we may continue to minimize the evils likely to arise from such immigration without unnecessary friction and by
mutual concessions between self-respecting governments. Meantime we must take every precaution to prevent, or failing that,
to punish outbursts of race feeling among our people against foreigners of whatever nationality who have by our grant a treaty
right to pursue lawful business here and to be protected against lawless assault or injury.

This leads me to point out a serious defect in the present federal jurisdiction, which ought to be remedied at once. Having
assured to other countries by treaty the protection of our laws for such of their subjects or citizens as we permit to come
within our jurisdiction, we now leave to a state or a city, not under the control of the Federal Government, the duty of performing
our international obligations in this respect. By proper legislation we may, and ought to, place in the hands of the Federal
Executive the means of enforcing the treaty rights of such aliens in the courts of the Federal Government. It puts our Government
in a pusillanimous position to make definite engagements to protect aliens and then to excuse the failure to perform those
engagements by an explanation that the duty to keep them is in States or cities, not within our control. If we would promise
we must put ourselves in a position to perform our promise. We cannot permit the possible failure of justice, due to local
prejudice in any State or municipal government, to expose us to the risk of a war which might be avoided if federal jurisdiction
was asserted by suitable legislation by Congress and carried out by proper proceedings instituted by the Executive in the
courts of the National Government.

One of the reforms to be carried out during the incoming administration is a change of our monetary and banking laws, so as
to secure greater elasticity in the forms of currency available for trade and to prevent the limitations of law from operating
to increase the embarrassment of a financial panic. The monetary commission, lately appointed, is giving full consideration
to existing conditions and to all proposed remedies, and will doubtless suggest one that will meet the requirements of business
and of public interest.

We may hope that the report will embody neither the narrow dew of those who believe that the sole purpose of the new system
should be to secure a large return on banking capital or of those who would have greater expansion of currency with little
regard to provisions for its immediate redemption or ultimate security. There is no subject of economic discussion so intricate
and so likely to evoke differing views and dogmatic statements as this one. The commission, in studying the general influence
of currency on business and of business on currency, have wisely extended their investigations in European banking and monetary
methods. The information that they have derived from such experts as they have found abroad will undoubtedly be found helpful
in the solution of the difficult problem they have in hand.

The incoming Congress should promptly fulfill the promise of the Republican platform and pass a proper postal savings bank
bill. It will not be unwise or excessive paternalism. The promise to repay by the Government will furnish an inducement to
savings deposits which private enterprise can not supply and at such a low rate of interest as not to withdraw custom from
existing banks. It will substantially increase the funds available for investment as capital in useful enterprises. It will
furnish absolute security which makes the proposed scheme of government guaranty of deposits so alluring, without its pernicious
results.

I sincerely hope that the incoming Congress will be alive, as it should be, to the importance of our foreign trade and of
encouraging it in every way feasible. The possibility of increasing this trade in the Orient, in the Philippines, and in South
America are known to everyone who has given the matter attention. The direct effect of free trade between this country and
the Philippines will be marked upon our sales of cottons, agricultural machinery, and other manufactures. The necessity of
the establishment of direct lines of steamers between North and South America has been brought to the attention of Congress
by my predecessor and by Mr. Root before and after his noteworthy visit to that continent, and I sincerely hope that Congress
may be induced to see the wisdom of a tentative effort to establish such lines by the use of mail subsidies.

The importance of the part which the Departments of Agriculture and of Commerce and Labor may play in ridding the markets
of Europe of prohibitions and discriminations against the importation of our products is fully understood, and it is hoped
that the use of the maximum and minimum feature of our tariff law to be soon passed will be effective to remove many of those
restrictions.

The Panama Canal will have a most important bearing upon the trade between the eastern and far western sections of our country, and will greatly
increase the facilities for transportation between the eastern and the western seaboard, and may possibly revolutionize the
transcontinental rates with respect to bulky merchandise. It will also have a most beneficial effect to increase the trade
between the eastern seaboard of the United States and the western coast of South America, and, indeed, with some of the important
ports on the east coast of South America reached by rail from the west coast.

The work on the canal is making most satisfactory progress. The type of the canal as a lock canal was fixed by Congress after
a full consideration of the conflicting reports of the majority and minority of the consulting board, and after the recommendation
of the War Department and the Executive upon those reports. Recent suggestion that something had occurred on the Isthmus to
make the lock type of the canal less feasible than it was supposed to be when the reports were made and the policy determined
on led to a visit to the Isthmus of a board of competent engineers to examine the Gatun dam and locks, which are the key of
the lock type. The report of that board shows nothing has occurred in the nature of newly revealed evidence which should change
the views once formed in the original discussion. The construction will go on under a most effective organization controlled
by Colonel Goethals and his fellow army engineers associated with him, and will certainly be completed early in the next administration,
if not before.

Some type of canal must be constructed. The lock type has been selected. We are all in favor of having it built as promptly
as possible. We must not now, therefore, keep up a fire in the rear of the agents whom we have authorized to do our work on
the Isthmus. We must hold up their hands, and speaking for the incoming administration I wish to say that I propose to devote
all the energy possible and under my control to pushing of this work on the plans which have been adopted, and to stand behind
the men who are doing faithful, hard work to bring about the early completion of this, the greatest constructive enterprise
of modern times.

The governments of our dependencies in Porto Rico and the Philippines are progressing as favorably as could be desired. The
prosperity of Porto Rico continues unabated. The business conditions in the Philippines are not all that we could wish them
to be, but with the passage of the new tariff bill permitting free trade between the United States and the archipelago, with
such limitations on sugar and tobacco as shall prevent injury to domestic interests in those products, we can count on an
improvement in business conditions in the Philippines and the development of a mutually profitable trade between this country
and the islands. Meantime our Government in each dependency is upholding the traditions of civil liberty and increasing popular
control which might be expected under American auspices. The work which we are doing there redounds to our credit as a nation.

I look forward with hope to increasing the already good feeling between the South and the other sections of the country. My
chief purpose is not to effect a change in the electoral vote of the Southern States. That is a secondary consideration. What
I look forward to is an increase in the tolerance of political views of all kinds and their advocacy throughout the South,
and the existence of a respectable political opposition in every State; even more than this, to an increased feeling on the
part of all the people in the South that this Government is their Government, and that its officers in their states are their
officers.

The consideration of this question can not, however, be complete and full without reference to the negro race, its progress and its present condition. The thirteenth amendment secured them freedom; the fourteenth amendment due
process of law, protection of property, and the pursuit of happiness; and the fifteenth amendment attempted to secure the negro against any deprivation of the privilege to vote because he was a negro. The thirteenth and
fourteenth amendments have been generally enforced and have secured the objects for which they are intended. While the fifteenth
amendment has not been generally observed in the past, it ought to be observed, and the tendency of Southern legislation today
is toward the enactment of electoral qualifications which shall square with that amendment. Of course, the mere adoption of
a constitutional law is only one step in the right direction. It must be fairly and justly enforced as well. In time both
will come. Hence it is clear to all that the domination of an ignorant, irresponsible element can be prevented by constitutional
laws which shall exclude from voting both negroes and whites not having education or other qualifications thought to be necessary
for a proper electorate. The danger of the control of an ignorant electorate has therefore passed. With this change, the interest
which many of the Southern white citizens take in the welfare of the negroes has increased. The colored men must base their
hope on the results of their own industry, self-restraint, thrift, and business success, as well as upon the aid and comfort
and sympathy which they may receive from their white neighbors of the South.

There was a time when Northerners who sympathized with the negro in his necessary struggle for better conditions sought to
give him the suffrage as a protection to enforce its exercise against the prevailing sentiment of the South. The movement
proved to be a failure. What remains is the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution and the right to have statutes of States
specifying qualifications for electors subjected to the test of compliance with that amendment. This is a great protection
to the negro. It never will be repealed, and it never ought to be repealed. If it had not passed, it might be difficult now
to adopt it; but with it in our fundamental law, the policy of Southern legislation must and will tend to obey it, and so
long as the statutes of the States meet the test of this amendment and are not otherwise in conflict with the Constitution
and laws of the United States, it is not the disposition or within the province of the Federal Government to interfere with
the regulation by Southern States of their domestic affairs. There is in the South a stronger feeling than ever among the
intelligent well-to-do, and influential element in favor of the industrial education of the negro and the encouragement of
the race to make themselves useful members of the community. The progress which the negro has made in the last fifty years,
from slavery, when its statistics are reviewed, is marvelous, and it furnishes every reason to hope that in the next twenty-five
years a still greater improvement in his condition as a productive member of society, on the farm, and in the shop, and in
other occupations may come.

The negroes are now Americans. Their ancestors came here years ago against their will, and this is their only country and
their only flag. They have shown themselves anxious to live for it and to die for it. Encountering the race feeling against
them, subjected at times to cruel injustice growing out of it, they may well have our profound sympathy and aid in the struggle
they are making. We are charged with the sacred duty of making their path as smooth and easy as we can. Any recognition of
their distinguished men, any appointment to office from among their number, is properly taken as an encouragement and an appreciation
of their progress, and this just policy should be pursued when suitable occasion offers.

But it may well admit of doubt whether, in the case of any race, an appointment of one of their number to a local office in
a community in which the race feeling is so widespread and acute as to interfere with the ease and facility with which the
local government business can be done by the appointee is of sufficient benefit by way of encouragement to the race to outweigh
the recurrence and increase of race feeling which such an appointment is likely to engender. Therefore the Executive, in recognizing
the negro race by appointments, must exercise a careful discretion not thereby to do it more harm than good. On the other
hand, we must be careful not to encourage the mere pretense of race feeling manufactured in the interest of individual political
ambition.

Personally, I have not the slightest race prejudice or feeling, and recognition of its existence only awakens in my heart
a deeper sympathy for those who have to bear it or suffer from it, and I question the wisdom of a policy which is likely to
increase it. Meantime, if nothing is done to prevent it, a better feeling between the negroes and the whites in the South
will continue to grow, and more and more of the white people will come to realize that the future of the South is to be much
benefited by the industrial and intellectual progress of the negro. The exercise of political franchises by those of this
race who are intelligent and well to do will be acquiesced in, and the right to vote will be withheld only from the ignorant
and irresponsible of both races.

There is one other matter to which I shall refer. It was made the subject of great controversy during the election and calls
for at least a passing reference now. My distinguished predecessor has given much attention to the cause of labor, with whose
struggle for better things he has shown the sincerest sympathy. At his instance Congress has passed the bill fixing the liability
of interstate carriers to their employees for injury sustained in the course of employment, abolishing the rule of fellow-servant
and the common-law rule as to contributory negligence, and substituting therefor the so-called rule of "comparative negligence."
It has also passed a law fixing the compensation of government employees for injuries sustained in the employ of the Government
through the negligence of the superior. It has also passed a model child-labor law for the District of Columbia. In previous
administrations an arbitration law for interstate commerce railroads and their employees, and laws for the application of
safety devices to save the lives and limbs of employees of interstate railroads had been passed. Additional legislation of
this kind was passed by the outgoing Congress.

I wish to say that insofar as I can I hope to promote the enactment of further legislation of this character. I am strongly
convinced that the Government should make itself as responsible to employees injured in its employ as an interstate-railway
corporation is made responsible by federal law to its employees; and I shall be glad, whenever any additional reasonable safety
device can be invented to reduce the loss of life and limb among railway employees, to urge Congress to require its adoption
by interstate railways.

Another labor question has arisen which has awakened the most excited discussion. That is in respect to the power of the federal
courts to issue injunctions in industrial disputes. As to that, my convictions are fixed. Take away from the courts, if it
could be taken away, the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and it would create a privileged class among the laborers
and save the lawless among their number from a most needful remedy available to all men for the protection of their business
against lawless invasion. The proposition that business is not a property or pecuniary right which can be protected by equitable
injunction is utterly without foundation in precedent or reason. The proposition is usually linked with one to make the secondary
boycott lawful. Such a proposition is at variance with the American instinct, and will find no support, in my judgment, when
submitted to the American people. The secondary boycott is an instrument of tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.

The issue of a temporary restraining order without notice has in several instances been abused by its inconsiderate exercise,
and to remedy this the platform upon which I was elected recommends the formulation in a statute of the conditions under which
such a temporary restraining order ought to issue. A statute can and ought to be framed to embody the best modern practice,
and can bring the subject so closely to the attention of the court as to make abuses of the process unlikely in the future.
The American people, if I understand them, insist that the authority of the courts shall be sustained, and are opposed to
any change in the procedure by which the powers of a court may be weakened and the fearless and effective administration of
justice be interfered with.

Having thus reviewed the questions likely to recur during my administration, and having expressed in a summary way the position
which I expect to take in recommendations to Congress and in my conduct as an Executive, I invoke the considerate sympathy
and support of my fellow-citizens and the aid of the Almighty God in the discharge of my responsible duties.

President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens, the peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet
common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings.

As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation.

And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace. I am honored and humbled to stand
here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new
world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom,
the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that
no insignificant person was ever born.

Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes
delayed, we must follow no other course.

Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon
the wind, taking root in many nations.

Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do
not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. The ambitions of some
Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences
run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.

We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every
generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.

I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image.

And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift
us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen
must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of
us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear
small.

But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do
not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If
we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over
cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment.

America, at its best, is also courageous.

Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defending common dangers defined our common good.
Now we must choose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time
of blessing by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives.

We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will
reduce taxes, to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans.

We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our
country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power
that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression
and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy
of our nation's promise.

And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts
of God, they are failures of love.

And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities.
And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless.

Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion
is the work of a nation, not just a government.

And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity,
synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal:
When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.

America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected.

Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it
brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children
and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored
acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small
things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage,
to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.

In all these ways, I will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed
reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens: citizens, not
spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves.
When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can
stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “We know the race
is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this
day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.

We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and
our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to
affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.

General: It is my design, if the enemy keep quiet and allow me to take the initiative in the spring campaign, to work all
parts of the army together, and somewhat toward a common centre. For your information I now write you my programme, as at
present determined upon.

I have sent orders to Banks, by private messenger, to finish up his present expedition against Shreveport with all dispatch;
to turn over the defense of Red River to General Steele and the navy, and to return your troops to you, and his own to New
Orleans; to abandon all of Texas, except the Rio Grande, and to hold that with not to exceed four thousand men; to reduce
the number of troops on the Mississippi to the lowest number necessary to hold it, and to collect from his command not less
than twenty-five thousand men. To this I will add five thousand from Missouri. With this force he is to commence operations
against Mobile as soon as he can. It will be impossible for him to commence too early.

Gillmore joins Butler with ten thousand men, and the two operate against Richmond from the south side of James River. This
will give Butler thirty-three thousand men to operate with, W. F. Smith commanding the right wing of his forces, and Gillmore
the left wing. I will stay with the Army of the Potomac, increased by Burnside's corps of not less than twenty-five thousand
effective men, and operate directly against Lee's army, wherever it may be found.

Sigel collects all his available force in two columns, one, under Ord and Averill, to start from Beverly, Virginia, and the
other, under Crook, to start from Charleston, on the Kanawha, to move against the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad.

Crook will have all cavalry, and will endeavor to get in about Saltville, and move east from there to join Ord. His force
will be all cavalry, while Ord will have from ten to twelve thousand men of all arms.

You I propose to move against Johnston's army, to break it up, and to get into the interior of the enemy's country as far
as you can, inflicting all the damage you can against their war resources.

I do not propose to lay down for you a plan of campaign, but simply to lay down the work it is desirable to have done, and
leave you free to execute it in your own way. Submit to me, however, as early as you can, your plan of operations.

As stated, Banks is ordered to commence operations as soon as he can. Gillmore is ordered to report at Fortress Monroe by
the 18th inst., or as soon thereafter as practicable. Sigel is concentrating now. None will move from their places of rendezvous
until I direct, except Banks. I want to be ready to move by the 25th inst., if possible; but all I can now direct is that
you get ready as soon as possible. I know you will have difficulties to encounter in getting through the mountains to where
supplies are abundant, but I believe you will accomplish it.

From the expedition from the Department of West Virginia I do not calculate on very great results; but it is the only way
I can take troops from there. With the long line of railroad Sigel has to protect, he can spare no troops, except to move
directly to his front. In this way he must get through to inflict great damage on the enemy, or the enemy must detach from
one of his armies a large force to prevent it. In other words, if Sigel can't skin himself, he can hold a leg while some one
else skins.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.

. . .

April 19, 1864

What I now want more particularly to say is, that if the two main attacks, yours and the one from here, should promise great
success, the enemy may, in a fit of desperation, abandon one part of their line of defense, and throw their whole strength
upon the other, believing a single defeat without any victory to sustain them better than a defeat all along their line, and
hoping too, at the same time, that the army, meeting with no resistance, will rest perfectly satisfied with their laurels,
having penetrated to a given point south, thereby enabling them to throw their force first upon one and then on the other.

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.

Source: William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General William T. Sherman, 2 vol. (1875).

This day has been made brighter with the presence here of one who, for a time, has been absent-Senator John Stennis.

God bless you and welcome back.

There is, however, one who is not with us today: Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana left us last night. I wonder if we
could all join in a moment of silent prayer. (Moment of silent prayer.) Amen.

There are no words adequate to express my thanks for the great honor that you have bestowed on me. I will do my utmost to
be deserving of your trust.

This is, as Senator Mathias told us, the 50th time that we the people have celebrated this historic occasion. When the first
President, George Washington, placed his hand upon the Bible, he stood less than a single day's journey by horseback from
raw, untamed wilderness. There were 4 million Americans in a union of 13 States. Today we are 60 times as many in a union
of 50 States. We have lighted the world with our inventions, gone to the aid of mankind wherever in the world there was a
cry for help, journeyed to the Moon and safely returned. So much has changed. And yet we stand together as we did two centuries
ago.

When I took this oath four years ago, I did so in a time of economic stress. Voices were raised saying we had to look to our
past for the greatness and glory. But we, the present-day Americans, are not given to looking backward. In this blessed land,
there is always a better tomorrow.

Four years ago, I spoke to you of a new beginning and we have accomplished that. But in another sense, our new beginning is
a continuation of that beginning created two centuries ago when, for the first time in history, government, the people said,
was not our master, it is our servant; its only power that which we the people allow it to have.

That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was
not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments
or to the people themselves. We allowed taxes and inflation to rob us of our earnings and savings and watched the great industrial
machine that had made us the most productive people on Earth slow down and the number of unemployed increase.

By 1980, we knew it was time to renew our faith, to strive with all our strength toward the ultimate in individual freedom
consistent with an orderly society.

We believed then and now there are no limits to growth and human progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams.

And we were right to believe that. Tax rates have been reduced, inflation cut dramatically, and more people are employed than
ever before in our history.

We are creating a nation once again vibrant, robust, and alive. But there are many mountains yet to climb. We will not rest
until every American enjoys the fullness of freedom, dignity, and opportunity as our birthright. It is our birthright as citizens
of this great Republic, and we'll meet this challenge.

These will be years when Americans have restored their confidence and tradition of progress; when our values of faith, family,
work, and neighborhood were restated for a modern age; when our economy was finally freed from government's grip; when we
made sincere efforts at meaningful arms reduction, rebuilding our defenses, our economy, and developing new technologies,
and helped preserve peace in a troubled world; when Americans courageously supported the struggle for liberty, self-government,
and free enterprise throughout the world, and turned the tide of history away from totalitarian darkness and into the warm
sunlight of human freedom.

My fellow citizens, our Nation is poised for greatness. We must do what we know is right and do it with all our might. Let
history say of us, "These were golden years-when the American Revolution was reborn, when freedom gained new life, when America
reached for her best."

Our two-party system has served us well over the years, but never better than in those times of great challenge when we came
together not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans united in a common cause.

Two of our Founding Fathers, a Boston lawyer named Adams and a Virginia planter named Jefferson, members of that remarkable
group who met in Independence Hall and dared to think they could start the world over again, left us an important lesson.
They had become political rivals in the Presidential election of 1800. Then years later, when both were retired, and age had
softened their anger, they began to speak to each other again through letters. A bond was reestablished between those two
who had helped create this government of ours.

In 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, they both died. They died on the same day, within a few
hours of each other, and that day was the Fourth of July.

In one of those letters exchanged in the sunset of their lives, Jefferson wrote: "It carries me back to the times when, beset
with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his
right to self-government. Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us, and yet
passing harmless . . . we rode through the storm with heart and hand."

Well, with heart and hand, let us stand as one today: One people under God determined that our future shall be worthy of our
past. As we do, we must not repeat the well-intentioned errors of our past. We must never again abuse the trust of working
men and women, by sending their earnings on a futile chase after the spiraling demands of a bloated Federal Establishment.
You elected us in 1980 to end this prescription for disaster, and I don't believe you reelected us in 1984 to reverse course.

At the heart of our efforts is one idea vindicated by 25 straight months of economic growth: Freedom and incentives unleash
the drive and entrepreneurial genius that are the core of human progress. We have begun to increase the rewards for work,
savings, and investment; reduce the increase in the cost and size of government and its interference in people's lives.

We must simplify our tax system, make it more fair, and bring the rates down for all who work and earn. We must think anew
and move with a new boldness, so every American who seeks work can find work; so the least among us shall have an equal chance
to achieve the greatest things-to be heroes who heal our sick, feed the hungry, protect peace among nations, and leave this
world a better place.

The time has come for a new American emancipation-a great national drive to tear down economic barriers and liberate the spirit
of enterprise in the most distressed areas of our country. My friends, together we can do this, and do it we must, so help
me God.

From new freedom will spring new opportunities for growth, a more productive, fulfilled and united people, and a stronger
America-an America that will lead the technological revolution, and also open its mind and heart and soul to the treasures
of literature, music, and poetry, and the values of faith, courage, and love.

A dynamic economy, with more citizens working and paying taxes, will be our strongest tool to bring down budget deficits.
But an almost unbroken 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning
point, a moment for hard decisions. I have asked the Cabinet and my staff a question, and now I put the same question to all
of you: If not us, who? And if not now, when? It must be done by all of us going forward with a program aimed at reaching
a balanced budget. We can then begin reducing the national debt.

I will shortly submit a budget to the Congress aimed at freezing government program spending for the next year. Beyond that,
we must take further steps to permanently control Government's power to tax and spend. We must act now to protect future generations
from Government's desire to spend its citizens' money and tax them into servitude when the bills come due. Let us make it
unconstitutional for the Federal Government to spend more than the Federal Government takes in.

We have already started returning to the people and to State and local governments responsibilities better handled by them.
Now, there is a place for the Federal Government in matters of social compassion. But our fundamental goals must be to reduce
dependency and upgrade the dignity of those who are infirm or disadvantaged. And here a growing economy and support from family
and community offer our best chance for a society where compassion is a way of life, where the old and infirm are cared for,
the young and, yes, the unborn protected, and the unfortunate looked after and made self-sufficient.

And there is another area where the Federal Government can play a part. As an older American, I remember a time when people
of different race, creed, or ethnic origin in our land found hatred and prejudice installed in social custom and, yes, in
law. There is no story more heartening in our history than the progress that we have made toward the "brotherhood of man"
that God intended for us. Let us resolve there will be no turning back or hesitation on the road to an America rich in dignity
and abundant with opportunity for all our citizens.

Let us resolve that we the people will build an American opportunity society in which all of us-white and black, rich and
poor, young and old-will go forward together arm in arm. Again, let us remember that though our heritage is one of blood lines
from every corner of the Earth, we are all Americans pledged to carry on this last, best hope of man on Earth.

I have spoken of our domestic goals and the limitations which we should put on our National Government. Now let me turn to
a task which is the primary responsibility of National Government-the safety and security of our people.

Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. Yet history has shown that peace will
not come, nor will our freedom be preserved, by good will alone. There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human
dignity and freedom. One nation, the Soviet Union, has conducted the greatest military buildup in the history of man, building arsenals of awesome offensive weapons.

We have made progress in restoring our defense capability. But much remains to be done. There must be no wavering by us, nor
any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace.

There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for
it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase
of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from
the face of the Earth.

Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the
use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality
in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens
of millions of theirs?

I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It
wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We
will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction.

We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies
in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one
of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination,
for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress.

America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally.

And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Every blow we inflict against poverty will be a blow
against its dark allies of oppression and war. Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace.

So we go forward today, a nation still mighty in its youth and powerful in its purpose. With our alliances strengthened, with
our economy leading the world to a new age of economic expansion, we look forward to a world rich in possibilities. And all
this because we have worked and acted together, not as members of political parties, but as Americans.

My friends, we live in a world that is lit by lightning. So much is changing and will change, but so much endures, and transcends
time.

History is a ribbon, always unfurling; history is a journey. And as we continue our journey, we think of those who traveled
before us. We stand together again at the steps of this symbol of our democracy-or we would have been standing at the steps
if it hadn't gotten so cold. Now we are standing inside this symbol of our democracy. Now we hear again the echoes of our
past: a general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely President paces the darkened halls, and ponders
his struggle to preserve the Union; the men of the Alamo call out encouragement to each other; a settler pushes west and sings
a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air.

It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our
song. We sing it still. For all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old, as we raise our voices to the God
who is the Author of this most tender music. And may He continue to hold us close as we fill the world with our sound-sound
in unity, affection, and love-one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart,
called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.

The slave revolt on the island of Hispaniola that was led with remarkable brilliance by Toussaint L'Ouverture from 1791 until
his betrayal into French hands in 1802 was an inspiration to African slaves in other colonies. Word of Toussaint's conquest of Santo Domingo in 1801 came to the vicinity of Richmond, Virginia, in the
same year and encouraged a slave named Gabriel and his nearly 1,000 followers to attempt a similar revolt. The uprising, however,
was put down, and some 25 African Americans were executed. James Monroe, then governor of Virginia, expressed his concern in a letter to President Thomas Jefferson and
sought his advice on provisions for the remaining rebels. Jefferson replied on November 24, urging some form of colonization
for the renegades.

I had not been unmindful of your letter of June 15, covering a resolution of the House of Representatives of Virginia, and
referred to in yours of the 17th inst. The importance of the subject, and the belief that it gave us time for consideration
till the next meeting of the legislature, have induced me to defer the answer to this date. You will perceive that some circumstances
connected with the subject, and necessarily presenting themselves to view, would be improper but for yours and the legislative
ear. Their publication might have an ill effect in more than one quarter. In confidence of attention to this, I shall indulge
greater freedom in writing.

Common malefactors, I presume, make no part of the object of that resolution. Neither their numbers nor the nature of their
offenses seem to require any provisions beyond those practised heretofore and found adequate to the repression of ordinary
crimes. Conspiracy, insurgency, treason, rebellion, among that description of persons who brought on us the alarm, and on
themselves the tragedy of 1800 were doubtless within the view of everyone; but many perhaps contemplated, and one expression
of the resolution might comprehend, a much larger scope. Respect to both opinions makes it my duty to understand the resolution
in all the extent of which it is susceptible.

The idea seems to be to provide for these people by a purchase of lands; and it is asked whether such a purchase can be made
of the U.S. in their western territory? A very great extent of country, north of the Ohio, has been laid off into townships,
and is now at market, according to the provisions of the acts of Congress, with which you are acquainted. There is nothing
which would restrain the state of Virginia, either in the purchase or the application of these lands; but a purchase, by the
acre, might perhaps be a more expensive provision than the House of Representatives contemplated. Questions would also arise
whether the establishment of such a colony within our limits, and to become a part of our Union, would be desirable to the
state of Virginia itself, or to the other states--especially those who would be in its vicinity?

Could we procure lands beyond the limits of the U.S. to form a receptacle for these people? On our northern boundary, the
country not occupied by British subjects is the property of Indian nations, whose title would be to be extinguished, with
the consent of Great Britain; and the new settlers would be British subjects. It is hardly to be believed that either Great
Britain or the Indian proprietors have so disinterested a regard for us as to be willing to relieve us by receiving such a
colony themselves; and as much to be doubted whether that race of men could long exist in so rigorous a climate. On our western
and southern frontiers, Spain holds an immense country, the occupancy of which, however, is in the Indian natives, except
a few isolated spots possessed by Spanish subjects. It is very questionable, indeed, whether the Indians would sell, whether
Spain would be willing to receive these people, and nearly certain that she would not alienate the sovereignty.

The same question to ourselves would recur here also, as did in the first case: should we be willing to have such a colony
in contact with us? However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward
to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not
the southern, continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms and by similar laws; nor can
we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface. Spain, France, and Portugal hold possessions on the
southern continent, as to which I am not well enough informed to say how far they might meet our views. But either there or
in the northern continent, should the constituted authorities of Virginia fix their attention, of preference, I will have
the dispositions of those powers sounded in the first instance.

The West Indies offer a more probable and practicable retreat for them. Inhabited already by a people of their own race and
color, climates congenial with their natural constitution, insulated from the other descriptions of men; nature seems to have
formed these islands to become the receptacle of the blacks transplanted into this hemisphere. Whether we could obtain from
the European sovereigns of those islands leave to send thither the persons under consideration, I cannot say; but I think
it more probable than the former propositions, because of their being already inhabited more or less by the same race. The
most promising portion of them is the island of Santo Domingo, where the black are established into a sovereignty de facto and have organized themselves under regular laws and government. I should conjecture that their present ruler might be willing,
on many considerations, to receive even that description which would be exiled for acts deemed criminal by us, but meritorious,
perhaps, by him.

The possibility that these exiles might stimulate and conduct vindicative or predatory descents on our coasts, and facilitate
concert with their brethren remaining here, looks to a state of things between that island and us not probable on a contemplation
of our relative strength, and of the disproportion daily growing; and it is overweighed by the humanity of the measures proposed
and the advantages of disembarrassing ourselves of such dangerous characters. Africa would offer a last and undoubted resort,
if all others more desirable should fail us.

Whenever the legislature of Virginia shall have brought its mind to a point so that I may know exactly what to propose to
foreign authorities, I will execute their wishes with fidelity and zeal. I hope, however, they will pardon me for suggesting
a single question for their own consideration. When we contemplate the variety of countries and of sovereigns toward which
we may direct our views; the vast revolutions and changes of circumstances which are now in a course of progression; the possibilities
that arrangements now to be made, with a view to any particular plan, may, at no great distance of time, be totally deranged
by a change of sovereignty, of government, or of other circumstances, it will be for the legislature to consider whether,
after they shall have made all those general provisions which may be fixed by legislative authority, it would be reposing
too much confidence in their executive to leave the place of relegation to be decided on by them. They could accommodate their arrangements to the actual state of things in which countries or powers may be found to exist
at the day; and may prevent the effect of the law from being defeated by intervening changes. This, however, is for them to
decide. Our duty will be to respect their decision.

In his message to Congress of December 2, 1845, President Polk reinterpreted the Monroe Doctrine in terms of the prevailing
spirit of Manifest Destiny. Whereas Monroe had said only that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonialism,
Polk now stated that European nations had better not interfere with projected territorial expansion by the United States.
The occasion of this message was recent publicity concerning attempts of Great Britain and France to thwart annexation of
Texas. Polk also asserted the United States' title to Oregon and California.

It is submitted to the wisdom of Congress to determine whether, at their present session, and until after the expiration of
the year's notice, any other measures may be adopted consistently with the convention of 1827 for the security of our rights
and the government and protection of our citizens in Oregon. That it will ultimately be wise and proper to make liberal grants
of land to the patriotic pioneers, who amidst privations and dangers lead the way through savage tribes inhabiting the vast
wilderness intervening between our frontier settlements and Oregon, and who cultivate and are ever ready to defend the soil,
I am fully satisfied. To doubt whether they will obtain such grants as soon as the convention between the United States and
Great Britain shall have ceased to exist would be to doubt the justice of Congress; but, pending the year's notice, it is
worthy of consideration whether a stipulation to this effect may be made consistently with the spirit of that convention.

The recommendations which I have made as to the best manner of securing our rights in Oregon are submitted to Congress with
great deference. Should they in their wisdom devise any other mode better calculated to accomplish the same object, it shall
meet with my hearty concurrence.

At the end of the year's notice, should Congress think it proper to make provision for giving that notice, we shall have reached
a period when the national rights in Oregon must either be abandoned or firmly maintained. That they cannot be abandoned without
a sacrifice of both national honor and interest is too clear to admit of doubt.

Oregon is a part of the North American continent, to which, it is confidently affirmed, the title of the United States is
the best now in existence. For the grounds on which that title rests I refer you to the correspondence of the late and present
secretary of state with the British plenipotentiary during the negotiation. The British proposition of compromise, which would
make the Columbia the line south of 49 , with a trifling addition of detached territory to the United States north of that river, and would leave on the British
side two-thirds of the whole Oregon territory, including the free navigation of the Columbia and all the valuable harbors
on the Pacific, can never for a moment be entertained by the United States without an abandonment of their just and clear
territorial rights, their own self-respect, and the national honor. For the information of Congress, I communicate herewith
the correspondence which took place between the two governments during the late negotiation.

The rapid extension of our settlements over our territories heretofore unoccupied, the addition of new states to our confederacy,
the expansion of free principles, and our rising greatness as a nation are attracting the attention of the powers of Europe,
and lately the doctrine has been broached in some of them of a "balance of power" on this continent to check our advancement.
The United States, sincerely desirous of preserving relations of good understanding with all nations, cannot in silence permit
any European interference on the North American continent, and should any such interference be attempted will be ready to
resist it at any and all hazards.

It is well known to the American people and to all nations that this government has never interfered with the relations subsisting
between other governments. We have never made ourselves parties to their wars or their alliances; we have not sought their
territories by conquest; we have not mingled with parties in their domestic struggles; and believing our own form of government
to be the best, we have never attempted to propagate it by intrigues, by diplomacy, or by force. We may claim on this continent
a like exemption from European interference. The nations of America are equally sovereign and independent with those of Europe.
They possess the same rights, independent of all foreign interposition, to make war, to conclude peace, and to regulate their
internal affairs. The people of the United States cannot, therefore, view with indifference attempts of European powers to
interfere with the independent action of the nations on this continent.

The American system of government is entirely different from that of Europe. Jealousy among the different sovereigns of Europe,
lest any one of them might become too powerful for the rest, has caused them anxiously to desire the establishment of what
they term the "balance of power." It cannot be permitted to have any application on the North American continent, and especially
to the United States. We must ever maintain the principle that the people of this continent alone have the right to decide
their own destiny. Should any portion of them, constituting an independent state, propose to unite themselves with our confederacy,
this will be a question for them and us to determine without any foreign interposition. We can never consent that European
powers shall interfere to prevent such a union because it might disturb the "balance of power" which they may desire to maintain
upon this continent.

Near a quarter of a century ago the principle was distinctly announced to the world, in the annual message of one of my predecessors,
that:

The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to
be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.

This principle will apply with greatly increased force should any European power attempt to establish any new colony in North
America. In the existing circumstances of the world the present is deemed a proper occasion to reiterate and reaffirm the
principle avowed by Mr. Monroe and to state my cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound policy. The reassertion of this
principle, especially in reference to North America, is at this day but the promulgation of a policy which no European power
should cherish the disposition to resist. Existing rights of every European nation should be respected, but it is due alike
to our safety and our interests that the efficient protection of our laws should be extended over our whole territorial limits,
and that it should be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy that no future European colony or dominion shall
with our consent be planted or established on any part of the North American continent.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 4, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 385-416.

In his Farewell Address, written with the help of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and delivered March 4, 1837, Andrew Jackson reviewed the accomplishments of his administration and explained the motivation
of some of his policies. He looked back with satisfaction and prophesied the continuation of his program under his handpicked
successor, Martin Van Buren. Nineteenth-century historians did not view Jackson's eight years in office so complacently. An
early biographer, James Parton, pointed to some of the contradictions in his character and in his achievements. Jackson “was
a patriot and a traitor. He was one of the greatest generals and wholly ignorant of the art of war....The first of statesmen,
he never devised, he never framed a measure....A most law-defying, law-obeying citizen....A democrat autocrat. An urban savage.
An atrocious saint.”

Being about to retire finally from public life, I beg leave to offer you my grateful thanks for the many proofs of kindness
and confidence which I have received at your hands. It has been my fortune, in the discharge of public duties, civil and military,
frequently to have found myself in difficult and trying situations where prompt decision and energetic action were necessary
and where the interest of the country required that high responsibilities should be fearlessly encountered; and it is with
the deepest emotions of gratitude that I acknowledge the continued and unbroken confidence with which you have sustained me
in every trial.

My public life has been a long one, and I cannot hope that it has, at all times, been free from errors. But I have the consolation
of knowing that, if mistakes have been committed, they have not seriously injured the country I so anxiously endeavored to
serve; and, at the moment when I surrender my last public trust, I leave this great people prosperous and happy, in the full
enjoyment of liberty and peace, and honored and respected by every nation of the world.

If my humble efforts have, in any degree, contributed to preserve to you these blessings, I have been more than rewarded by
the honors you have heaped upon me; and, above all, by the generous confidence with which you have supported me in every peril,
and with which you have continued to animate and cheer my path to the closing hour of my political life. The time has now
come when advanced age and a broken frame warn me to retire from public concerns; but the recollection of the many favors
you have bestowed upon me is engraven upon my heart, and I have felt that I could not part from your service without making
this public acknowledgment of the gratitude I owe you. And if I use the occasion to offer to you the counsels of age and experience,
you will, I trust, receive them with the same indulgent kindness which you have so often extended to me; and will, at least,
see in them an earnest desire to perpetuate, in this favored land, the blessings of liberty and equal laws.

We have now lived almost fifty years under the Constitution framed by the sages and patriots of the Revolution. The conflicts
in which the nations of Europe were engaged during a great part of this period, the spirit in which they waged war against
each other, and our intimate commercial connections with every part of the civilized world rendered it a time of much difficulty
for the government of the United States. We have had our seasons of peace and war, with all the evils which precede or follow
a state of hostility with powerful nations. We encountered these trials with our Constitution yet in its infancy, and under
the disadvantages which a new and untried government must always feel when it is called upon to put forth its whole strength
without the lights of experience to guide it or the weight of precedents to justify its measures. But we have passed triumphantly
through all these difficulties. Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment; and, at the end of nearly half a century,
we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people, secured the rights of property, and that our country
has improved and is flourishing beyond any former example in the history of nations.

In our domestic concerns there is everything to encourage us; and if you are true to yourselves nothing can impede your march
to the highest point of national prosperity. The states which had so long been retarded in their improvement by the Indian
tribes residing in the midst of them are at length relieved from the evil; and this unhappy race--the original dwellers in
our land--are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be
saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the states. And while
the safety and comfort of our own citizens have been greatly promoted by their removal, the philanthropist will rejoice that
the remnant of that ill-fated race has been at length placed beyond the reach of injury or oppression, and that the paternal
care of the general government will hereafter watch over them and protect them.

If we turn to our relations with foreign powers, we find our condition equally gratifying. Actuated by the sincere desire
to do justice to every nation and to preserve the blessings of peace, our intercourse with them has been conducted on the
part of this government in the spirit of frankness; and I take pleasure in saying that it has generally been met in a corresponding
temper. Difficulties of old standing have been surmounted by friendly discussion and the mutual desire to be just; and the
claims of our citizens, which had long been withheld, have at length been acknowledged and adjusted, and satisfactory arrangements
made for their final payment. And with a limited and, I trust, a temporary exception, our relations with every foreign power
are now of the most friendly character, our commerce continually expanding, and our flag respected in every quarter of the
world.

These cheering and grateful prospects and these multiplied favors we owe, under Providence, to the adoption of the federal
Constitution. It is no longer a question whether this great country can remain happily united and flourish under our present
form of government. Experience, the unerring test of all human undertakings, has shown the wisdom and foresight of those who
formed it; and has proved that in the union of these states there is a sure foundation for the brightest hopes of freedom
and for the happiness of the people. At every hazard and by every sacrifice, this Union must be preserved.

The necessity of watching with jealous anxiety for the preservation of the Union was earnestly pressed upon his fellow citizens
by the father of his country in his farewell address. He has there told us that "while experience shall not have demonstrated
its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to
weaken its bonds"; and he has cautioned us, in the strongest terms, against the formation of parties on geographical discriminations,
as one of the means which might disturb our Union, and to which designing men would be likely to resort.

The lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of Washington to his countrymen should be cherished in the heart of every
citizen to the latest generation; and, perhaps, at no period of time could they be more usefully remembered than at the present
moment. For when we look upon the scenes that are passing around us and dwell upon the pages of his parting address, his paternal
counsels would seem to be not merely the offspring of wisdom and foresight but the voice of prophecy foretelling events and
warning us of the evil to come.

Forty years have passed since this imperishable document was given to his countrymen. The federal Constitution was then regarded
by him as an experiment, and he so speaks of it in his address, but an experiment upon the success of which the best hopes
of his country depended, and we all know that he was prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to secure to it a full and
a fair trial. The trial has been made. It has succeeded beyond the proudest hopes of those who framed it. Every quarter of
this widely extended nation has felt its blessings and shared in the general prosperity produced by its adoption.

But amid this general prosperity and splendid success, the dangers of which he warned us are becoming every day more evident,
and the signs of evil are sufficiently apparent to awaken the deepest anxiety in the bosom of the patriot. We behold systematic
efforts publicly made to sow the seeds of discord between different parts of the United States and to place party divisions
directly upon geographical distinctions; to excite the South against the North and the North against the South; and to force
into the controversy the most delicate and exciting topics, topics upon which it is impossible that a large portion of the
Union can ever speak without strong emotion.

Appeals, too, are constantly made to sectional interests in order to influence the election of the chief magistrate, as if
it were desired that he should favor a particular quarter of the country instead of fulfilling the duties of his station with
impartial justice to all; and the possible dissolution of the Union has at length become an ordinary and familiar subject
of discussion. Has the warning voice of Washington been forgotten? Or have designs already been formed to sever the Union?

Let it not be supposed that I impute to all of those who have taken an active part in these unwise and unprofitable discussions
a want of patriotism or of public virtue. The honorable feeling of state pride and local attachments find a place in the bosoms
of the most enlightened and pure. But while such men are conscious of their own integrity and honesty of purpose, they ought
never to forget that the citizens of other states are their political brethren; and that, however mistaken they may be in
their views, the great body of them are equally honest and upright with themselves. Mutual suspicions and reproaches may in
time create mutual hostility, and artful and designing men will always be found who are ready to foment these fatal divisions
and to inflame the natural jealousies of different sections of the country. The history of the world is full of such examples
and especially the history of republics.

What have you to gain by division and dissension? Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once made may be afterward
repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are
now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword. Neither
should you deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of separation would be the permanent one, and that nothing
but harmony and concord would be found in the new associations formed upon the dissolution of this Union. Local interests
would still be found there, and unchastened ambition. And if the recollection of common dangers in which the people of these
United States stood side by side against the common foe; the memory of victories won by their united valor; the prosperity
and happiness they have enjoyed under the present Constitution; the proud name they bear as citizens of this great republic;
if all these recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong enough to bind us together as one people, what tie
will hold united the new divisions of empire when these bonds have been broken and this Union dissevered?

The first line of separation would not last for a single generation; new fragments would be torn off; new leaders would spring
up; and this great and glorious republic would soon be broken into a multitude of petty states, without commerce, without
credit, jealous of one another, armed for mutual aggression, loaded with taxes to pay armies and leaders, seeking aid against
each other from foreign powers, insulted and trampled upon by the nations of Europe, until, harassed with conflicts and humbled
and debased in spirit, they would be ready to submit to the absolute dominion of any military adventurer and to surrender
their liberty for the sake of repose. It is impossible to look on the consequences that would inevitably follow the destruction
of this government and not feel indignant when we hear cold calculations about the value of the Union and have so constantly
before us a line of conduct so well calculated to weaken its ties.

There is too much at stake to allow pride or passion to influence your decision. Never for a moment believe that the great
body of the citizens of any state or states can deliberately intend to do wrong. They may, under the influence of temporary
excitement or misguided opinions, commit mistakes; they may be misled for a time by the suggestions of self-interest; but
in a community so enlightened and patriotic as the people of the United States, argument will soon make them sensible of their
errors, and, when convinced, they will be ready to repair them. If they have no higher or better motives to govern them, they
will at least perceive that their own interest requires them to be just to others as they hope to receive justice at their
hands.

But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired, it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities
should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should, at all times, stand ready
to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be
made or whatever shape it may assume. Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from
erroneous views or the want of due consideration. If they are within the reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and
peaceful; and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free
discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong. But until the law
shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress, no individual or combination of individuals can be justified
in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any government can continue to exist upon any other principles.
It would cease to be a government and be unworthy of the name if it had not the power to enforce the execution of its own
laws within its own sphere of action.

It is true that cases may be imagined disclosing such a settled purpose of usurpation and oppression on the part of the government
as would justify an appeal to arms. These, however, are extreme cases, which we have no reason to apprehend in a government
where the power is in the hands of a patriotic people. And no citizen who loves his country would in any case whatever resort
to forcible resistance, unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer death to submission; for
if such a struggle is once begun and the citizens of one section of the country arrayed in arms against those of another in
doubtful conflict, let the battle result as it may, there will be an end of the Union and, with it, an end to the hopes of
freedom. The victory of the injured would not secure to them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge their wrongs, but they
would themselves share in the common ruin.

But the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved in opposition to public feeling by the mere exertion of
the coercive powers confided to the general government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people; in the
security it gives to life, liberty, character, and property in every quarter of the country; and in the fraternal attachment
which the citizens of the several states bear to one another as members of one political family, mutually contributing to
promote the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every state should studiously avoid everything calculated to wound
the sensibility or offend the just pride of the people of other states; and they should frown upon any proceedings within
their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of their political brethren in other portions of the Union.

In a country so extensive as the United States and with pursuits so varied, the internal regulations of the several states
must frequently differ from one another in important particulars; and this difference is unavoidably increased by the varying
principles upon which the American colonies were originally planted; principles which had taken deep root in their social
relations before the Revolution and, therefore, of necessity influencing their policy since they became free and independent
states. But each state has the unquestionable right to regulate its own internal concerns according to its own pleasure; and
while it does not interfere with the rights of the people of other states or the rights of the Union, every state must be
the sole judge of the measures proper to secure the safety of its citizens and promote their happiness; and all efforts on
the part of the people of other states to cast odium upon their institutions, and all measures calculated to disturb their
rights of property or to put in jeopardy their peace and internal tranquillity, are in direct opposition to the spirit in
which the Union was formed and must endanger its safety.

Motives of philanthropy may be assigned for this unwarrantable interference; and weak men may persuade themselves for a moment
that they are laboring in the cause of humanity and asserting the rights of the human race. But everyone, upon sober reflection,
will see that nothing but mischief can come from these improper assaults upon the feelings and rights of others. Rest assured
that the men found busy in this work of discord are not worthy of your confidence and deserve your strongest reprobation.

In the legislation of Congress, also, and in every measure of the general government, justice to every portion of the United
States should be faithfully observed. No free government can stand without virtue in the people and a lofty spirit of patriotism;
and if the sordid feelings of mere selfishness shall usurp the place which ought to be filled by public spirit, the legislation
of Congress will soon be converted into a scramble for personal and sectional advantages. Under our free institutions, the
citizens of every quarter of our country are capable of attaining a high degree of prosperity and happiness without seeking
to profit themselves at the expense of others; and every such attempt must in the end fail to succeed, for the people in every
part of the United States are too enlightened not to understand their own rights and interests and to detect and defeat every
effort to gain undue advantages over them. And when such designs are discovered, it naturally provokes resentments which cannot
always be easily allayed. Justice, full and ample justice, to every portion of the United States, should be the ruling principle
of every freeman and should guide the deliberations of every public body, whether it be state or national.

It is well known that there have always been those among us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general government; and
experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this government to overstep the boundaries marked
out for it by the Constitution. Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was created;
and its powers being expressly enumerated, there can be no justification for claiming anything beyond them. Every attempt
to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed. For one evil example will lead to other measures
still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers, or supposed advantages, or temporary circumstances, shall
ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the general government will before long
absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have, in effect, but one consolidated government. From the extent of our
country, its diversified interests, different pursuits, and different habits, it is too obvious for argument that a single
consolidated government would be wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests; and every friend of our free institutions
should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the states and to confine
the action of the general government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.

There is, perhaps, no one of the powers conferred on the federal government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most
productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to perform the important
duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the
article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the tax
gatherer. But the tax imposed on goods enhances by so much the price of the commodity to the consumer; and, as many of these
duties are imposed on articles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of the people, the money raised by these
imposts is drawn from their pockets.

Congress has no right, under the Constitution, to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of
the specific powers entrusted to the government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse
of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive. It may, indeed, happen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount
anticipated when the taxes were laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them; and, in such a case,
it is unquestionably the duty of the government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not
given to it by the Constitution nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants
of the government.

Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find that there is a constant effort to induce the general government
to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people. Many powerful interests are
continually at work to procure heavy duties on commerce and to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the public
service; and the country has already felt the injurious effects of their combined influence. They succeeded in obtaining a
tariff of duties bearing most oppressively on the agricultural and laboring classes of society and producing a revenue that
could not be usefully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon Congress; and, in order to fasten upon the people
this unjust and unequal system of taxation, extravagant schemes of internal improvement were got up in various quarters to
squander the money and to purchase support. Thus, one unconstitutional measure was intended to be upheld by another, and the
abuse of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the power of expending the money in internal improvements.

You cannot have forgotten the severe and doubtful struggle through which we passed when the Executive Department of the government,
by its veto, endeavored to arrest this prodigal scheme of injustice and to bring back the legislation of Congress to the boundaries
prescribed by the Constitution. The good sense and practical judgment of the people, when the subject was brought before them,
sustained the course of the executive; and this plan of unconstitutional expenditure for the purpose of corrupt influence
is, I trust, finally overthrown.

The result of this decision has been felt in the rapid extinguishment of the public debt and the large accumulation of a surplus
in the treasury, notwithstanding the tariff was reduced and is now very far below the amount originally contemplated by its
advocates. But, rely upon it, the design to collect an extravagant revenue and to burden you with taxes beyond the economical
wants of the government is not yet abandoned. The various interests which have combined together to impose a heavy tariff
and to produce an overflowing treasury are too strong and have too much at stake to surrender the contest. The corporations
and wealthy individuals who are engaged in large manufacturing establishments desire a high tariff to increase their gains.
Designing politicians will support it to conciliate their favor and to obtain the means of profuse expenditure for the purpose
of purchasing influence in other quarters; and since the people have decided that the federal government cannot be permitted
to employ its income in internal improvements, efforts will be made to seduce and mislead the citizens of the several states
by holding out to them the deceitful prospect of benefits to be derived from a surplus revenue collected by the general government
and annually divided among the states. And if, encouraged by these fallacious hopes, the states should disregard the principles
of economy which ought to characterize every republican government and should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their
resources, they will, before long, find themselves oppressed with debts which they are unable to pay, and the temptation will
become irresistible to support high tariff in order to obtain a surplus for distribution.

Do not allow yourselves, my fellow citizens, to be misled on this subject. The federal government cannot collect a surplus
for such purposes without violating the principles of the Constitution and assuming powers which have not been granted. It
is, moreover, a system of injustice, and, if persisted in, will inevitably lead to corruption and must end in ruin. The surplus
revenue will be drawn from the pockets of the people, from the farmer, the mechanic, and the laboring classes of society;
but who will receive it when distributed among the states, where it is to be disposed of by leading state politicians who
have friends to favor and political partisans to gratify? It will certainly not be returned to those who paid it and who have
most need of it and are honestly entitled to it. There is but one safe rule, and that is to confine the general government
rigidly within the sphere of its appropriate duties. It has no power to raise a revenue or impose taxes except for the purposes
enumerated in the Constitution; and if its income is found to exceed these wants, it should be forthwith reduced, and the
burdens of the people so far lightened.

In reviewing the conflicts which have taken place between different interests in the United States and the policy pursued
since the adoption of our present form of government, we find nothing that has produced such deep-seated evil as the course
of legislation in relation to the currency. The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the
people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress with the privilege of
issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several
states upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its
place.

It was not easy for men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of business, whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the
subject, to foresee all the consequences of a currency exclusively of paper; and we ought not, on that account, to be surprised
at the facility with which laws were obtained to carry into effect the paper system. Honest and even enlightened men are sometimes
misled by the specious and plausible statements of the designing. But experience has now proved the mischiefs and dangers
of a paper currency, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied.

The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, it is liable to great and sudden
fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain. The corporations which create
the paper money cannot be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount. In times of prosperity, when confidence
is high, they are tempted by the prospect of gain or by the influence of those who hope to profit by it to extend their issues
of paper beyond the bounds of discretion and the reasonable demands of business. And when these issues have been pushed on
from day to day until the public confidence is at length shaken, then a reaction takes place, and they immediately withdraw
the credits they have given; suddenly curtail their issues; and produce an unexpected and ruinous contraction of the circulating
medium which is felt by the whole community.

The banks, by this means, save themselves, and the mischievous consequences of their imprudence or cupidity are visited upon
the public. Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally
engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in
the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which, within the last year or two, seized upon
such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the
sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote
the true interests of our country.

But if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without
labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at
any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption which will find its way into your public
councils and destroy, at no distant day, the purity of your government. Some of the evils which arise from this system of
paper press, with peculiar hardship, upon the class of society least able to bear it. A portion of this currency frequently
becomes depreciated or worthless, and all of it is easily counterfeited in such a manner as to require peculiar skill and
much experience to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine note. These frauds are most generally perpetrated in the smaller
notes, which are used in the daily transactions of ordinary business; and the losses occasioned by them are commonly thrown
upon the laboring classes of society whose situation and pursuits put it out of their power to guard themselves from these
impositions and whose daily wages are necessary for their subsistence.

It is the duty of every government so to regulate its currency as to protect this numerous class as far as practicable from
the impositions of avarice and fraud. It is more especially the duty of the United States where the government is emphatically
the government of the people, and where this respectable portion of our citizens are so proudly distinguished from the laboring
classes of all other nations by their independent spirit, their love of liberty, their intelligence, and their high tone of
moral character. Their industry in peace is the source of our wealth, and their bravery in war has covered us with glory;
and the government of the United States will but ill discharge its duties if it leaves them a prey to such dishonest impositions.
Yet it is evident that their interests cannot be effectually protected unless silver and gold are restored to circulation.

These views alone of the paper currency are sufficient to call for immediate reform; but there is another consideration which
should still more strongly press it upon your attention.

Recent events have proved that the paper money system of this country may be used as an engine to undermine your free institutions;
and that those who desire to engross all power in the hands of the few and to govern by corruption or force are aware of its
power and prepared to employ it. Your banks now furnish your only circulating medium, and money is plenty or scarce according
to the quantity of notes issued by them. While they have capitals not greatly disproportioned to each other, they are competitors
in business, and no one of them can exercise dominion over the rest. And although, in the present state of the currency, these
banks may and do operate injuriously upon the habits of business, the pecuniary concerns, and the moral tone of society, yet,
from their number and dispersed situation, they cannot combine for the purpose of political influence; and whatever may be
the dispositions of some of them their power of mischief must necessarily be confined to a narrow space and felt only in their
immediate neighborhoods.

But when the charter of the Bank of the United States was obtained from Congress, it perfected the schemes of the paper system
and gave its advocates the position they have struggled to obtain from the commencement of the federal government down to
the present hour. The immense capital and peculiar privileges bestowed upon it enabled it to exercise despotic sway over the
other banks in every part of the country. From its superior strength it could seriously injure, if not destroy, the business
of any one of them which might incur its resentment; and it openly claimed for itself the power of regulating the currency
throughout the United States. In other words, it asserted (and it undoubtedly possessed) the power to make money plenty or
scarce, at its pleasure, at any time, and in any quarter of the Union, by controlling the issues of other banks and permitting
an expansion or compelling a general contraction of the circulating medium according to its own will.

The other banking institutions were sensible of its strength, and they soon generally became its obedient instruments, ready
at all times to execute its mandates; and with the banks necessarily went, also, that numerous class of persons in our commercial
cities who depend altogether on bank credits for their solvency and means of business; and who are, therefore, obliged for
their own safety to propitiate the favor of the money power by distinguished zeal and devotion in its service.

The result of the ill-advised legislation which established this great monopoly was to concentrate the whole money power of
the Union, with its boundless means of corruption and its numerous dependents, under the direction and command of one acknowledged
head; thus organizing this particular interest as one body and securing to it unity and concert of action throughout the United
States and enabling it to bring forward, upon any occasion, its entire and undivided strength to support or defeat any measure
of the government. In the hands of this formidable power, thus perfectly organized, was also placed unlimited dominion over
the amount of the circulating medium, giving it the power to regulate the value of property and the fruits of labor in every
quarter of the Union and to bestow prosperity or bring ruin upon any city or section of the country as might best comport
with its own interest or policy.

We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would be likely to
use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war
upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands cannot yet be forgotten. The ruthless and unsparing temper
with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity
suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United
States.

If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war with an enemy at your doors? No nation
but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the
government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few; and this organized money power, from its
secret conclave, would have directed the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war as best suited
their own wishes. The forms of your government might, for a time, have remained; but its living spirit would have departed
from it.

The distress and sufferings inflicted on the people by the Bank are some of the fruits of that system of policy which is continually
striving to enlarge the authority of the federal government beyond the limits fixed by the Constitution. The powers enumerated
in that instrument do not confer on Congress the right to establish such a corporation as the Bank of the United States; and
the evil consequences which followed may warn us of the danger of departing from the true rule of construction and of permitting
temporary circumstances or the hope of better promoting the public welfare to influence, in any degree, our decisions upon
the extent of the authority of the general government. Let us abide by the Constitution as it is written or amend it in the
constitutional mode if it is found defective.

The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly,
even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal
vigilance by the people is the price of liberty; and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves
you, therefore, to be watchful in your states as well as in the federal government. The power which the moneyed interest can
exercise, when concentrated under a single head, and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in
the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. Defeated in the general government, the same class of intriguers and politicians
will now resort to the states and endeavor to obtain there the same organization which they failed to perpetuate in the Union;
and with specious and deceitful plans of public advantages and state interests and state pride they will endeavor to establish,
in the different states, one moneyed institution with overgrown capital and exclusive privileges sufficient to enable it to
control the operations of the other banks.

Such an institution will be pregnant with the same evils produced by the Bank of the United States, although its sphere of
action is more confined; and in the state in which it is chartered the money power will be able to embody its whole strength
and to move together with undivided force to accomplish any object it may wish to attain. You have already had abundant evidence
of its power to inflict injury upon the agricultural, mechanical, and laboring classes of society, and over whose engagements
in trade or speculation render them dependent on bank facilities, the dominion of the state monopoly will be absolute, and
their obedience unlimited. With such a bank and a paper currency, the money power would, in a few years, govern the state
and control its measures; and if a sufficient number of states can be induced to create such establishments, the time will
soon come when it will again take the field against the United States and succeed in perfecting and perpetuating its organization
by a charter from Congress.

It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society, and that by no means
a numerous one, by its control over the currency to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more
than its just proportion of influence in political affairs. The agricultural, the mechanical, and the laboring classes have
little or no share in the direction of the great moneyed corporations; and from their habits and the nature of their pursuits,
they are incapable of forming extensive combinations to act together with united force. Such concert of action may sometimes
be produced in a single city or in a small district of country by means of personal communications with each other; but they
have no regular or active correspondence with those who are engaged in similar pursuits in distant places. They have but little
patronage to give the press and exercise but a small share of influence over it; they have no crowd of dependents about them
who hope to grow rich without labor by their countenance and favor and who are, therefore, always ready to exercise their
wishes.

The planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer all know that their success depends upon their own industry and economy
and that they must not expect to become suddenly rich by the fruits of their toil. Yet these classes of society form the great
body of the people of the United States; they are the bone and sinew of the country; men who love liberty and desire nothing
but equal rights and equal laws and who, moreover, hold the great mass of our national wealth, although it is distributed
in moderate amounts among the millions of freemen who possess it. But, with overwhelming numbers and wealth on their side,
they are in constant danger of losing their fair influence in the government, and with difficulty maintain their just rights
against the incessant efforts daily made to encroach upon them.

The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control;
from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the different states
and which are employed altogether for their benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit
of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will, in the end, find that the most important powers of government have
been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.

The paper money system and its natural associates, monopoly and exclusive privileges, have already struck their roots deep
in the soil; and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil. The men who profit
by the abuses and desire to perpetuate them will continue to besiege the halls of legislation in the general government as
well as in the states and will seek, by every artifice, to mislead and deceive the public servants. It is to yourselves that
you must look for safety and the means of guarding and perpetuating your free institutions. In your hands is rightfully placed
the sovereignty of the country and to you everyone placed in authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power
to see that the wishes of the people are carried into faithful execution, and their will, when once made known, must sooner
or later be obeyed. And while the people remain, as I trust they ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible and continue watchful
and jealous of their rights, the government is safe, and the cause of freedom will continue to triumph over all its enemies.

But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part to rid yourselves of the iniquities and mischiefs of the
paper system and to check the spirit of monopoly and other abuses which have sprung up with it and of which it is the main
support. So many interests are united to resist all reform on this subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short
one nor success easy. My humble efforts have not been spared during my administration of the government to restore the constitutional
currency of gold and silver; and something, I trust, has been done toward the accomplishment of this most desirable object.
But enough yet remains to require all your energy and perseverance. The power, however, is in your hands, and the remedy must
and will be applied if you determine upon it.

While I am thus endeavoring to press upon your attention the principles which I deem of vital importance in the domestic concerns
of the country, I ought not to pass over, without notice, the important considerations which should govern your policy toward
foreign powers. It is unquestionably our true interest to cultivate the most friendly understanding with every nation and
to avoid by every honorable means the calamities of war; and we shall best attain this object by frankness and sincerity in
our foreign intercourse, by the prompt and faithful execution of treaties, and by justice and impartiality in our conduct
to all. But no nation, however desirous of peace, can hope to escape occasional collisions with other powers; and the soundest
dictates of policy require that we should place ourselves in a condition to assert our rights if a resort to force should
ever become necessary.

Our local situation, our long line of seacoast, indented by numerous bays, with deep rivers opening into the interior, as
well as our extended and still increasing commerce, point to the navy as our natural means of defense. It will, in the end,
be found to be the cheapest and most effectual; and now is the time, in a season of peace and with an overflowing revenue,
that we can, year after year, add to its strength without increasing the burdens of the people. It is your true policy. For
your navy will not only protect your rich and flourishing commerce in distant seas, but will enable you to reach and annoy
the enemy and will give to defense its greatest efficiency by meeting danger at a distance from home.

It is impossible by any line of fortifications to guard every point from attack against a hostile force advancing from the
ocean and selecting its object; but they are indispensable to protect cities from bombardment, dockyards, and naval arsenals
from destruction; to give shelter to merchant vessels in time of war, and to single ships or weaker squadrons when pressed
by superior force. Fortifications of this description cannot be too soon completed and armed and placed in a condition of
the most perfect preparation. The abundant means we now possess cannot be applied in any manner more useful to the country;
and when this is done and our naval force sufficiently strengthened and our militia armed, we need not fear that any nation
will wantonly insult us or needlessly provoke hostilities. We shall more certainly preserve peace when it is well understood
that we are prepared for war.

In presenting to you, my fellow citizens, these parting counsels, I have brought before you the leading principles upon which
I endeavored to administer the government in the high office with which you twice honored me. Knowing that the path of freedom
is continually beset by enemies who often assume the disguise of friends, I have devoted the last hours of my public life
to warn you of the danger.

The progress of the United States under our free and happy institutions has surpassed the most sanguine hopes of the founders
of the republic. Our growth has been rapid beyond all former example--in numbers, in wealth, in knowledge, and all the useful
arts which contribute to the comforts and convenience of man; and from the earliest ages of history to the present day, there
never have been 13 million people associated together in one political body who enjoyed so much freedom and happiness as the
people of these United States. You have no longer any cause to fear danger from abroad; your strength and power are well known
throughout the civilized world, as well as the high and gallant bearing of your sons.

It is from within, among yourselves, from cupidity, from corruption, from disappointed ambition and inordinate thirst for
power, that factions will be formed and liberty endangered. It is against such designs, whatever disguise the actors may assume,
that you have especially to guard yourselves. You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence has
showered on this favored land blessings without number and has chosen you as the guardians of freedom to preserve it for the
benefit of the human race. May He who holds in His hands the destinies of nations make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed
and enable you, with pure hearts and pure hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time the great
charge He has committed to your keeping.

My own race is nearly run; advanced age and failing health warn me that before long I must pass beyond the reach of human
events and cease to feel the vicissitudes of human affairs. I thank God that my life has been spent in a land of liberty and
that He has given me a heart to love my country with the affection of a son. And, filled with gratitude for your constant
and unwavering kindness, I bid you a last and affectionate farewell.

Source: Farewell Address of Andrew Jackson to the People of the United States: and the Inaugural Address of Martin Van Buren, President
of the United States, 1837, pp. 3-16.

President Roosevelt was a conservationist by nature. An enthusiastic outdoorsman, he also recognized that the industrial transformation
of the United States since the Civil War had made coal, timber, and other natural resources vital to the welfare of the country.
Thus, he supported the work of federally employed civil engineers and foresters. In a special message to Congress on January
22, 1909 (reprinted here in part), he urged the formation of nationally supervised agencies to conserve natural resources.
His proposals included the creation of a Bureau of Mines, as well as the strengthening of the Inland Waterways Commission.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the National Conservation Commission, together with the accompanying papers. This report,
which is the outgrowth of the Conference of Governors last May, was unanimously approved by the recent joint conference held
in this city between the National Conservation Commission and governors of states, state conservation commissions, and conservation
committees of great organizations of citizens. It is, therefore, in a peculiar sense, representative of the whole nation and
all its parts.

With the statements and conclusions of this report I heartily concur, and I commend it to the thoughtful consideration both
of the Congress and of our people generally. It is one of the most fundamentally important documents ever laid before the
American people. It contains the first inventory of its natural resources ever made by any nation. In condensed form it presents
a statement of our available capital in material resources, which are the means of progress, and calls attention to the essential
conditions upon which the perpetuity, safety, and welfare of this nation now rest and must always continue to rest. It deserves,
and should have, the widest possible distribution among the people. . . .

The National Conservation Commission wisely confined its report to the statement of facts and principles, leaving the Executive
to recommend the specific steps to which these facts and principles inevitably lead. Accordingly, I call your attention to
some of the larger features of the situation disclosed by the report and to the action thereby clearly demanded for the general
good.

WATERS

The report says:

Within recent months it has been recognized and demanded by the people, through many thousand delegates from all states assembled
in convention in different sections of the country, that the waterways should and must be improved promptly and effectively
as a means of maintaining national prosperity.

The first requisite for waterway improvement is the control of the waters in such manner as to reduce floods and regulate
the regimen of the navigable rivers. The second requisite is development of terminals and connection in such manner as to
regulate commerce.

Accordingly, I urge that the broad plan for the development of our waterways recommended by the Inland Waterways Commission
be put in effect without delay. It provides for a comprehensive system of waterway improvement extending to all the uses of
the waters and benefits to be derived from their control, including navigation, the development of power, the extension of
irrigation, the drainage of swamp and overflow lands, the prevention of soil wash, and the purification of streams for water
supply. It proposes to carry out the work by coordinating agencies in the federal departments through the medium of an administrative
commission or board acting in cooperation with the states and other organizations and individual citizens.

The work of waterway development should be undertaken without delay. Meritorious projects in known conformity with the general
outlines of any comprehensive plan should proceed at once. The cost of the whole work should be met by direct appropriation,
if possible, but, if necessary, by the issue of bonds in small denominations.

It is especially important that the development of waterpower should be guarded with the utmost care both by the national
government and by the states in order to protect the people against the upgrowth of monopoly and to insure to them a fair
share in the benefits which will follow the development of this great asset which belongs to the people and should be controlled
by them.

FORESTS

I urge that provision be made for both protection and more rapid development of the national forests. Otherwise, either the increasing use of these forests by the people must be checked or their protection against fire must
be dangerously weakened. If we compare the actual fire damage on similar areas on private and national forest lands during
the past year, the government fire patrol saved commercial timber worth as much as the total cost of caring for all national
forests at the present rate for about ten years.

I especially commend to the Congress the facts presented by the commission as to the relation between forests and stream flow
in its bearing upon the importance of the forest lands in national ownership. Without an understanding of this intimate relation
the conservation of both these natural resources must largely fail.

The time has fully arrived for recognizing in the law the responsibility to the community, the state, and the nation which
rests upon the private owners of private lands. The ownership of forest land is a public trust. The man who would so handle
his forest as to cause erosion and to injure stream flow must be not only educated but he must be controlled.

The report of the National Conservation Commission says:

Forests in private ownership cannot be conserved unless they are protected from fire. We need good fire laws, well-enforced.
Fire control is impossible without an adequate force of men whose sole duty is fire patrol during the dangerous season.

I hold as first among the tasks before the states and the nation in their respective shares in forest conservation the organization
of efficient fire patrols and the enactment of good fire laws on the part of the states.

The report says further:

Present tax laws prevent reforestation of cut-over land and the perpetuation of existing forests by use. An annual tax upon
the land itself, exclusive of the timber, and a tax upon the timber when cut is well-adapted to actual conditions of forest
investment and is practicable and certain. It is far better that forest land should pay a moderate tax permanently than that
it should pay an excessive revenue temporarily and then cease to yield at all.

Second only in importance to good fire laws, well-enforced, is the enactment of tax laws which will permit the perpetuation
of existing forests by use.

LANDS

With our increasing population the time is not far distant when the problem of supplying our people with food will become
pressing. The possible additions to our arable area are not great, and it will become necessary to obtain much larger crops
from the land, as is now done in more densely settled countries. To do this, we need better farm practice and better strains
of wheat, corn, and other crop plants, with a reduction in losses from soil erosion and from insects, animals, and other enemies
of agriculture. The United States Department of Agriculture is doing excellent work in these directions and it should be liberally
supported.

The remaining public lands should be classified and the arable lands disposed of to homemakers. In their interest the Timber
and Stone Act and the commutation clause of the Homestead Act should be repealed, and the Desert-Land Law should be modified
in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Lands Commission.

The use of the public grazing lands should be regulated in such ways as to improve and conserve their value.

Rights to the surface of the public land should be separated from rights to forests upon it and to minerals beneath it, and
these should be subject to separate disposal.

The coal, oil, gas, and phosphate rights still remaining with the government should be withdrawn from entry and leased under
conditions favorable for economic development.

The consumption of nearly all of our mineral products is increasing more rapidly than our population. Our mineral waste is
about one-sixth of our product, or nearly $1 million for each working day in the year. The loss of structural materials through
fire is about another million a day. The loss of life in the mines is appalling. The larger part of these losses of life and
property can be avoided.

Our mineral resources are limited in quantity and cannot be increased or reproduced. With the rapidly increasing rate of consumption,
the supply will be exhausted while yet the nation is in its infancy unless better methods are devised or substitutes are found.
Further investigation is urgently needed in order to improve methods and to develop and apply substitutes.

It is of the utmost importance that a Bureau of Mines be established in accordance with the pending bill to reduce the loss
of life in mines and the waste of mineral resources, and to investigate the methods and substitutes for prolonging the duration
of our mineral supplies. Both the need and the public demand for such a bureau are rapidly becoming more urgent. It should
cooperate with the states in supplying data to serve as a basis for state mine regulations. The establishment of this bureau
will mean merely the transfer from other bureaus of work which it is agreed should be transferred and slightly enlarged and
reorganized for these purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

The joint conference already mentioned adopted two resolutions to which I call your special attention. The first was intended
to promote cooperation between the states and the nation upon all of the great questions here discussed. It is as follows:

Resolved, that a joint committee be appointed by the chairman to consist of six members of state conservation commissions and three
members of the National Conservation Commission, whose duty it shall be to prepare and present to the state and national commissions,
and through them to the governors and the President, a plan for united action by all organizations concerned with the conservation
of natural resources. . . .

The second resolution of the joint conference to which I refer calls upon the Congress to provide the means for such cooperation.
The principle of the community of interest among all our people in the great natural resources runs through the report of
the National Conservation Commission and the proceedings of the joint conference. These resources, which form the common basis
of our welfare, can be wisely developed, rightly used, and prudently conserved only by the common action of all the people
acting through their representatives in state and nation. Hence the fundamental necessity for cooperation. Without it we shall
accomplish but little, and that little badly. The resolution follows:

We also especially urge on the Congress of the United States the high desirability of maintaining a national commission on
the conservation of the resources of the country, empowered to cooperate with state commissions to the end that every sovereign
commonwealth and every section of the country may attain the high degree of prosperity and the sureness of perpetuity naturally
arising in the abundant resources and the vigor, intelligence, and patriotism of our people.

In this recommendation I most heartily concur, and I urge that an appropriation of at least $50,000 be made to cover the expenses
of the National Conservation Commission for necessary rent, assistance, and traveling expenses. This is a very small sum.
I know of no other way in which the appropriation of so small a sum would result in so large a benefit to the whole nation.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 11, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 1416-1426.

Westward expansion brought the United States into contact with numerous Indian tribes, and the admission of new states brought certain Indian lands within the national boundaries. In the following message
to Congress of December 6, 1830, President Andrew Jackson inaugurated the policy of extinguishing all Indian title to such
lands and removing Native Americans to an area beyond the Mississippi River. The president asserted that such a policy would
avoid a “collision” between federal authority over Native Americans and state jurisdiction of their lands, and that it would
open to “dense and civilized population” areas previously occupied by only “a few savage hunters.” The policy was upheld by
the Supreme Court in the case of Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, but, when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the Indians retained certain rights in their own lands, Jackson is said to have retorted, “John Marshall has made his
decision, now let him enforce it.”

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty
years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two
important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that
their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual states, and to the Indians themselves.
The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible
danger of collision between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Indians. It will place
a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory
between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen
the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent states strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will
relieve the whole state of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those states to advance
rapidly in population, wealth, and power.

It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable
them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which
is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence
of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences,
some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their
last session an object of much solicitude.

Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting
to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them
my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the general government in relation to the state authorities. For the
justice of the laws passed by the states within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this government.
As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a government we have as little right to control
them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.

With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail
themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River.
Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties,
they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests
to submitting to the laws of the states in which they now reside. These treaties, being probably the last which will ever
be made with them, are characterized by great liberality on the part of the government. They give the Indians a liberal sum
in consideration of their removal, and comfortable subsistence on their arrival at their new homes. If it be their real interest
to maintain a separate existence, they will there be at liberty to do so without the inconveniences and vexations to which
they would unavoidably have been subject in Alabama and Mississippi.

Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and philanthropy has been long busily employed in
devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes
disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite
melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one
generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions
of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the
existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human
race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found
by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our
extensive republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can
devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization,
and religion?

The present policy of the government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes
which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern states were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the
whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries
occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to
a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.

Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our
children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects.
Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does humanity weep at
these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from
it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body
or in mind, developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands
of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of
their arrival. Can it be cruel in this government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented
in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and
support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing
to the West on such conditions? If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude
and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?
Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered,
the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the
laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the
general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

In the consummation of a policy originating at an early period, and steadily pursued by every administration within the present
century--so just to the states and so generous to the Indians--the executive feels it has a right to expect the cooperation
of Congress and of all good and disinterested men. The states, moreover, have a right to demand it. It was substantially a
part of the compact which made them members of our Confederacy. With Georgia there is an express contract; with the new states
an implied one of equal obligation. Why, in authorizing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama to form
constitutions and become separate states, did Congress include within their limits extensive tracts of Indian lands, and,
in some instances, powerful Indian tribes? Was it not understood by both parties that the power of the states was to be coextensive
with their limits, and that, with all convenient dispatch, the general government should extinguish the Indian title and remove
every obstruction to the complete jurisdiction of the state governments over the soil? Probably not one of those states would
have accepted a separate existence--certainly it would never have been granted by Congress--had it been understood that they
were to be confined forever to those small portions of their nominal territory the Indian title to which had at the time been
extinguished.

It is, therefore, a duty which this government owes to the new states to extinguish as soon as possible the Indian title to
all lands which Congress themselves have included within their limits. When this is done the duties of the general government
in relation to the states and the Indians within their limits are at an end. The Indians may leave the state or not, as they
choose. The purchase of their lands does not alter in the least their personal relations with the state government. No act
of the general government has ever been deemed necessary to give the states jurisdiction over the persons of the Indians.
That they possess by virtue of their sovereign power within their own limits in as full a manner before as after the purchase
of the Indian lands; nor can this government add to or diminish it.

May we not hope, therefore, that all good citizens, and none more zealously than those who think the Indians oppressed by
subjection to the laws of the states, will unite in attempting to open the eyes of those children of the forest to their true
condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or imaginary, present or prospective, with which
they may be supposed to be threatened.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 2, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 500-529.

Calvin Coolidge was a Vermont Yankee, thrifty, conservative, almost puritanical in his zeal for the old-fashioned virtues.
Vice-President under Harding, Coolidge gave a Memorial Day Address in 1923, the simple, homespun language of which typified all of his future utterances. In discussing the destiny
of America, he reiterated the familiar myths in so persuasive a way that some people believed, one historian has said, that
they were hearing them for the first time. A portion of the speech is reprinted here. Within three months Coolidge was to
become President on Harding's death.

Patriotism is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. In no other nation on
earth does this principle have such complete application. It comes most naturally from the fundamental doctrine of our land
that the people are supreme. Lincoln stated the substance of the whole matter in his famous phrase, "government of the people;
by the people, and for the people."

The authority of law here is not something which is imposed upon the people; it is the will of the people themselves. The
decision of the court here is not something which is apart from the people; it is the judgment of the people themselves. The
right of the ownership of property here is not something withheld from the people; it is the privilege of the people themselves.
Their sovereignty is absolute and complete. A definition of the relationship between the institutions of our government and
the American people entirely justifies the assertion that: "All things were made by them; and without them was not anything made that was made." It is because the American government is the sole creation and possession of the people
that they have always cherished it and defended it, and always will.

There are two fundamental motives which inspire human action. The first and most important, to which all else is subordinate,
is that of righteousness. There is that in mankind, stronger than all else, which requires them to do right. When that requirement
is satisfied, the next motive is that of gain. These are the moral motive and the material motive. While in some particular
instance they might seem to be antagonistic, yet always, when broadly considered or applied to society as a whole, they are
in harmony. American institutions meet the test of these two standards. They are founded on righteousness, they are productive
of material prosperity. They compel the loyalty and support of the people because such action is right and because it is profitable.

These are the main reasons for the formation of patriotic societies. Desiring to promote the highest welfare of civilization,
their chief purpose is to preserve and extend American ideals. No matter what others may do, they are determined to serve
themselves and their fellowmen by thinking America, believing America, and living America. That faith they are proud to proclaim
to all the world.

It is no wonder that the people are attached to America when we consider what it has done and what it represents. It has been
called the last great hope of the world. Its simple story is a romance of surpassing interest. Its accomplishments rise above
the realm of fable. To live under the privileges of its citizenship is the highest position of opportunity and achievement
ever reached by a people.

If there be a destiny, it is of no avail for us unless we work with it. The ways of Providence will be of no advantage to
us unless we proceed in the same direction. If we perceive a destiny in America, if we believe that Providence has been the
guide, our own success, our own salvation require that we should act and serve in harmony and obedience.

Throughout all the centuries this land remained unknown to civilization. Just at a time when Christianity was at last firmly
established, when there was a general advance in learning, when there was a great spiritual awakening, America began to be
revealed to the European world. When this new age began, with its new aspirations and its new needs, its new hopes, and its
new desires, the shores of our country rose through the mist, disclosing a new hemisphere in which, untrammeled by Old World
conventions, new ideals might establish for mankind a new experience and a new life.

Settlers came here from mixed motives, some for pillage and adventure, some for trade and refuge, but those who have set their
imperishable mark upon our institutions came from far higher motives. Generally defined, they were seeking a broader freedom.
They were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principle of self-government.

They were an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness.
They had a genius for organized society on the foundation of piety, righteousness, liberty, and obedience to law. They brought
with them the accumulated wisdom and experience of the ages wherever it contributed to the civilizing power of these great
agencies. But the class and caste, the immaterial formalism of the Old World, they left behind. They let slip their grasp
upon conventionalities that they might lay a firmer hold upon realities. . . .

The main characteristics of those principles [of government] from which all others are deduced is a government of limited and defined powers, leaving the people supreme. The executive has sole command of the military forces, but he cannot raise a dollar of revenue.
The legislature has the sole authority to levy taxes, but it cannot issue a command to a single private soldier. The judiciary
interprets and declares the law and the Constitution, but it can neither create nor destroy the right of a single individual.
Freedom of action is complete, within moral bounds, under the law which the people themselves have prescribed. The individual
is supported in his right to follow his own choice, live his own life, and reap the rewards of his own effort. Justice is
administered by impartial courts. It is a maxim of our law that there is no wrong without a remedy. All the power and authority
of the whole national government cannot convict the most humble individual of a crime, save on the verdict of an impartial
jury composed of twelve of his peers. Opportunity is denied to none, every place is open, and every position yields to the
humblest in accordance with ability and application.

The chief repository of power is in the legislature, chosen directly by the people at frequent elections. It is this body,
which is particularly responsive to the public will, and yet, as in the Congress, is representative of the whole nation. It does not perform an executive function. It is not, therefore, charged with the
necessity of expedition. It is a legislative body and is, therefore, charged with the necessity for deliberation. Sometimes
this privilege may be abused, for this great power has been given as the main safeguard of liberty, and wherever power is
bestowed it may be used unwisely. But whenever a legislative body ceases to deliberate, then it ceases to act with due consideration.

That fact in itself is conclusive that it has ceased to be independent, has become subservient to a single directing influence
or a small group, either without or within itself, and is no longer representative of the people. Such a condition would not
be a rule of the people, but a rule of some unconstitutional power. It is my own observation and belief than the American
Congress is the most efficient and effective deliberative body, more untrammeled, more independent, more advised, more representative
of the will of the people than any body which legislates for any of the great powers. An independent legislature never deprived
the people of their liberty.

Such is America, such is the government and civilization which have grown up around the church, the town meeting, and the
schoolhouse. It is not perfect, but it surpasses the accomplishments of any other people. Such is the state of society which
has been created in this country, which has brought it from the untrodden wilderness of 300 years ago to its present state
of development. Who can fail to see in it the hand of destiny? Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence?
What has it not given to its people in material advantages, educational opportunity, and religious consolation? Our country
has not failed, our country has been a success. You are here because you believe in it, because you believe that it is right,
and because you know that it has paid. You are determined to defend it, to support it, and, if need be, to fight for it. You
know that America is worth fighting for.

But if our republic is to be maintained and improved it will be through the efforts and character of the individual. It will
be, first of all, because of the influences which exist in the home, for it is the ideals which prevail in the homelife which
make up the strength of the nation. The homely virtues must continue to be cultivated. The real dignity, the real nobility
of work must be cherished. It is only through industry that there is any hope for individual development. The viciousness
of waste and the value of thrift must continue to be learned and understood. Civilization rests on conservation. To these
there must be added religion, education, and obedience to law. These are the foundation of all character in the individual
and all hope in the nation. . . .

A growing tendency has been observed of late years to think too little of what is really the public interest and too much
of what is supposed to be class interest. The two great political parties of the nation have existed for the purpose, each
in accordance with its own principles, of undertaking to serve the interests of the whole nation. Their members of the Congress
are chosen with that great end in view. Patriotism does not mean a regard for some special section or an attachment for some
special interest, and a narrow prejudice against other sections and other interests; it means a love of the whole country.
This does not mean that any section or any interest is to be disproportionately preferred or disproportionately disregarded,
but that the welfare of all is equally to be sought. Agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and all the other desirable
activities should serve in accordance with their strength and should be served in accordance with the benefits they confer.

A division of the people or their representatives in accordance with any other principle or theory is contrary to the public
welfare. An organization for the purpose of serving some special interest is perfectly proper and may be exceedingly helpful, but whenever it undertakes to serve that interest by disregarding the
welfare of other interests, it becomes harmful alike to the interest which it proposes to serve and to the public welfare
in general. Under the modern organization of society there is such a necessary community of interests that all necessarily
experience depression or prosperity together.

They cannot be separated. Our country has resources sufficient to provide in abundance for everybody. But it cannot confer
a disproportionate share upon anybody. There is work here to keep amply employed every dollar of capital and every hand of
honest toil, but there is no place for profiteering, either in high prices or in low, by the organized greed of money or of
men. The most pressing requirement of the present day is that we should learn this lesson and be content with a fair share,
whether it be the returns from invested capital or the rewards of toil. On that foundation there is a guarantee of continued
prosperity, of stable economic conditions, of harmonious social relationships, and of sound and enduring government. On any
other theory or action the only prospect is that of wasteful conflict and suffering in our economic life and factional discord
and trifling in our political life. No private enterprise can succeed unless the public welfare be held supreme.

Another necessity of the utmost urgency in this day, a necessity which is worldwide, is economy in government expenditures.
This may seem the antithesis of military preparation, but, as a matter of fact, our present great debt is due, in a considerable
extent, to creating our last military establishment under the condition of war haste and war prices, which added enormously
to its cost. There is no end of the things which the government could do, seemingly, in the way of public welfare, if it had
the money. Everything we want cannot be had at once. It must be earned by toilsome labor. There is a very decided limit to
the amount which can be raised by taxation without ruinously affecting the people of the country by virtual confiscation of a part of their past savings.

The business of the country, as a whole, is transacted on a small margin of profit. The economic structure is one of great
delicacy and sensitiveness. When taxes become too burdensome, either the price of commodities has to be raised to a point
at which consumption is so diminished as greatly to curtail production, or so much of the returns from industry is required
by the government that production becomes unprofitable and ceases for that reason. In either case there is depression, lack
of employment, idleness of investment and of wage earner, with the long line of attendant want and suffering on the part of
the people. After order and liberty, economy is one of the highest essentials of a free government. It was in no small degree
the unendurable burden of taxation which drove Europe into the Great War. Economy is always a guarantee of peace.

It is the great economic question of government finances which is burdening the people of Europe at the present time. How
to meet obligations is the chief problem on continental Europe and in the British Isles. It cannot be doubted that high taxes
are the chief cause for the extended condition of unemployment which has required millions to subsist on the public treasury
in Great Britain for a long period of time, though the number of these unfortunate people has been declining. A government
which requires of the people the contribution of the bulk of their substance and rewards cannot be classed as a free government,
or long remain as such. It is gratifying to observe, in our own national government, that there has been an enormous decrease
in expenditures, a large reduction of the debt, and a revision of taxation affording great relief.

But it is in peace that there lies the greatest opportunity for relief from burdensome taxation. Our country is at peace,
not only legal but actual, with all other peoples. We cherish peace and goodwill toward all the earth, with a sentiment of
friendship and a desire for universal well-being. If we want peace it is our business to cultivate goodwill. It was for the
promotion of peace that the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armaments and Pacific Questions was called. For the first time in history the great powers of the earth
have agreed to a limitation of naval armaments. This was brought about by American initiative in accordance with an American
plan, and executed by American statesmanship. Out of regard for a similar principle is the proposal to participate in the
establishment of a World Court. These are in accordance with a desire to adjust differences between nations, not by an overpowering
display or use of force but by mutual conference and understanding in harmony with the requirement of justice and of honor.

Our country does not want war, it wants peace. It has not decreed this memorial season as an honor to war, with its terrible
waste and attendant train of suffering and hardship which reaches onward into the years of peace. Yet war is not the worst
of evils, and these days have been set apart to do honor to all those, now gone, who made the cause of America their supreme
choice. Some fell with the word of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death," almost ringing in their ears. Some
heard that word across the intervening generations and were still obedient to its call. It is to the spirit of those men,
exhibited in all our wars, to the spirit that places the devotion to freedom and truth above the devotion to life, that the
nation pays its ever enduring mark of reverence and respect.

It is not that principle that leads to conflict but to tranquillity. It is not that principle which is the cause of war but
the only foundation for an enduring peace. There can be no peace with the forces of evil. Peace comes only through the establishment
of the supremacy of the forces of good. That way lies only through sacrifice. It was that the people of our country might
live in a knowledge of the truth that these, our countrymen, are dead. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends."

This spirit is not dead, it is the most vital thing in America. It did not flow from any act of government. It is the spirit
of the people themselves. It justifies faith in them and faith in their institutions. Remembering all that it has accomplished
from the day of the Puritan and Cavalier to the day of the last, least immigrant, who lives by it no less than they, who shall
dare to doubt it, who shall dare to challenge it, who shall venture to rouse it into action? Those who have scoffed at it
from the day of the Stuarts and the Bourbons to the day of the Hapsburgs and the Hohenzollerns have seen it rise and prevail
over them. Calm, peaceful, puissant, it remains, conscious of its authority, "slow to anger, plenteous in mercy," seeking
not to injure but to serve, the safeguard of the republic, still the guarantee of a broader freedom, the supreme moral power
of the world. It is in that spirit that we place our trust. It is to that spirit again, with this returning year, we solemnly
pledge the devotion of all that we have and are.

Unwilling to depart from examples of the most revered authority, I avail myself of the occasion now presented to express the
profound impression made on me by the call of my country to the station to the duties of which I am about to pledge myself
by the most solemn of sanctions. So distinguished a mark of confidence, proceeding from the deliberate and tranquil suffrage
of a free and virtuous nation, would under any circumstances have commanded my gratitude and devotion, as well as filled me
with an awful sense of the trust to be assumed. Under the various circumstances which give peculiar solemnity to the existing
period, I feel that both the honor and the responsibility allotted to me are inexpressibly enhanced.

The present situation of the world is indeed without a parallel, and that of our own country full of difficulties. The pressure
of these, too, is the more severely felt because they have fallen upon us at a moment when the national prosperity being at
a height not before attained, the contrast resulting from the change has been rendered the more striking. Under the benign
influence of our republican institutions, and the maintenance of peace with all nations whilst so many of them were engaged
in bloody and wasteful wars, the fruits of a just policy were enjoyed in an unrivaled growth of our faculties and resources.
Proofs of this were seen in the improvements of agriculture, in the successful enterprises of commerce, in the progress of
manufacturers and useful arts, in the increase of the public revenue and the use made of it in reducing the public debt, and
in the valuable works and establishments everywhere multiplying over the face of our land.

It is a precious reflection that the transition from this prosperous condition of our country to the scene which has for some
time been distressing us is not chargeable on any unwarrantable views, nor, as I trust, on any involuntary errors in the public
councils. Indulging no passions which trespass on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the true glory of
the United States to cultivate peace by observing justice, and to entitle themselves to the respect of the nations at war
by fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality. If there be candor in the world, the truth
of these assertions will not be questioned; posterity at least will do justice to them.

This unexceptionable course could not avail against the injustice and violence of the belligerent powers. In their rage against
each other, or impelled by more direct motives, principles of retaliation have been introduced equally contrary to universal
reason and acknowledged law. How long their arbitrary edicts will be continued in spite of the demonstrations that not even
a pretext for them has been given by the United States, and of the fair and liberal attempt to induce a revocation of them,
can not be anticipated. Assuring myself that under every vicissitude the determined spirit and united councils of the nation
will be safeguards to its honor and its essential interests, I repair to the post assigned me with no other discouragement
than what springs from my own inadequacy to its high duties. If I do not sink under the weight of this deep conviction it
is because I find some support in a consciousness of the purposes and a confidence in the principles which I bring with me
into this arduous service.

To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality
toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision
of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so
baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our
own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the
union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union,
as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the
people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference
with the right of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their
full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press; to observe
economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to keep within
the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark
of republics-that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; to promote by authorized
means improvements friendly to agriculture, to manufactures, and to external as well as internal commerce; to favor in like
manner the advancement of science and the diffusion of information as the best aliment to true liberty; to carry on the benevolent
plans which have been so meritoriously applied to the conversion of our aboriginal neighbors from the degradation and wretchedness
of savage life to a participation of the improvements of which the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized state-as
far as sentiments and intentions such as these can aid the fulfillment of my duty, they will be a resource which can not fail
me.

It is my good fortune, moreover, to have the path in which I am to tread lighted by examples of illustrious services successfully
rendered in the most trying difficulties by those who have marched before me. Of those of my immediate predecessor it might
least become me here to speak. I may, however, be pardoned for not suppressing the sympathy with which my heart is full in
the rich reward he enjoys in the benedictions of a beloved country, gratefully bestowed or exalted talents zealously devoted
through a long career to the advancement of its highest interest and happiness.

But the source to which I look or the aids which alone can supply my deficiencies is in the well-tried intelligence and virtue
of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the
national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been
encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose
blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude
for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

James Sullivan, a member of the provincial congress of Massachusetts, corresponded with John Adams in May 1776 when the latter
was a member of the Second Continental Congress. On May 6, Sullivan wrote a letter to Adams in which he discussed the principles
of representation and legislation and called for some alterations in the qualifications for voters. Adams replied in the following
letter of May 26, 1776.

It is certain, in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent
shall we carry this principle? Shall we say that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well
as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say, this is impossible. How, then, does
the right arise in the majority to govern the minority against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern the
women without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young without theirs?

But let us first suppose that the whole community, of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community
is assembled. A motion is made, and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises
the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey?

From necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.

But why exclude women?

You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience in the great businesses of life, and the
hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary
nurture of their children that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of
their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true that men in general, in every society,
who are wholly destitute of property are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too
dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man who has no property a vote,
will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart
that very few men who have no property have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man
of property who has attached their minds to his interest.

Upon my word, sir, I have long thought an army a piece of clockwork, and to be governed only by principles and maxims, as
fixed as any in mechanics; and, by all that I have read in the history of mankind, and in authors who have speculated upon
society and government, I am much inclined to think a government must manage a society in the same manner; and that this is
machinery too.

Harrington has shown that power always follows property. This I believe to be as infallible a maxim in politics, as that action
and reaction are equal is in mechanics. Nay, I believe we may advance one step farther, and affirm that the balance of power
in a society accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power
on the side of equal liberty and public virtue is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make
a division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates. If the multitude is
possessed of the balance of real estate, the multitude will have the balance of power, and in that case the multitude will
take care of the liberty, virtue, and interest of the multitude in all acts of government. I believe these principles have
been felt, if not understood, in the Massachusetts Bay from the beginning; and therefore I should think that wisdom and policy
would dictate in these times to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing
into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any
alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.

Your idea that those laws which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect
those who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But so they do women as well as men; children as well
as adults. What reason should there be for excluding a man of twenty years eleven months and twenty-seven days old from a
vote, when you admit one who is twenty-one? The reason is you must fix upon some period in life when the understanding and
will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some
certain quantity of property as a qualification?

The same reasoning which will induce you to admit all men who have no property to vote with those who have, for those laws
which affect the person, will prove that you ought to admit women and children; for, generally speaking, women and children
have as good judgments, and as independent minds, as those men who are wholly destitute of property; these last being to all
intents and purposes as much dependent upon others who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their
husbands, or children on their parents.

As to your idea of proportioning the votes of men, in money matters, to the property they hold, it is utterly impracticable.
There is no possible way of ascertaining, at any one time, how much every man in a community is worth; and if there was, so
fluctuating is trade and property that this state of it would change in half an hour. The property of the whole community
is shifting every hour, and no record can be kept of the changes.

Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case as it happens,
nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general comprehensive regulations for cases and persons.
The only question is, which general rule will accommodate most cases and most persons.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting
to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise; women will demand a vote; lads from
twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal
voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions and prostrate all ranks to one
common level.

Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author, Charles Francis Adams, ed., 1850-1856, 10 vols.

By the end of the 1950s it had become apparent to many observers that the power struggle between East and West had developed
into a stalemate and, in particular, that the lines of demarcation between communism and the Western democracies had been
drawn in Europe and could not be changed without war. The United States had not liberated eastern Europe, nor was there any
real hope that it could; the Soviet Union had not extended its sphere either. The arms race had only increased the danger of any conflict between them; there could be no victory for either side, at least in traditional
senses of the term. In many speeches, notably the following address delivered at the University of Washington on November
16, 1961, President John F. Kennedy emphasized that America did not have unlimited power to control the world. He warned that
those people who sought easy answers, who demanded either peace at any price or total victory, who saw the alternatives as
being either “Red or dead,” were equally wrong and that their solutions would be equally disastrous. The only sane and effective
foreign policy in a nuclear age, he said over and over again, was one that combined willingness to negotiate and to compromise
with a determination to defend basic values.

In 1961 the world relations of this country have become tangled and complex. One of our former allies has become our adversary--and
he has his own adversaries who are not our allies. Heroes are removed from their tombs, history rewritten, the names of cities
changed overnight.

We increase our arms at a heavy cost, primarily to make certain that we will not have to use them. We must face up to the
chance of war if we are to maintain the peace. We must work with certain countries lacking in freedom in order to strengthen
the cause of freedom. We find some who call themselves neutrals who are our friends and sympathetic to us, and others who
call themselves neutral who are unremittingly hostile to us. And as the most powerful defender of freedom on earth, we find
ourselves unable to escape the responsibilities of freedom and yet unable to exercise it without restraints imposed by the
very freedoms we seek to protect. We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination,
false promises, counterfeit mobs, and crises.

We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different audiences, foreign, domestic,
friendly, and hostile.

We cannot abandon the slow processes of consulting with our allies to match the swift expediences of those who merely dictate
to their satellites. We can neither abandon nor control the international organization in which we now cast less than 1 percent
of the vote in the General Assembly. We possess weapons of tremendous power, but they are least effective in combating the
weapons most often used by freedom's foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare, and civil disorder. We send arms to
other peoples--just as we can send them the ideals of democracy in which we believe--but we cannot send them the will to use
those arms or to abide by those ideals.

And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does
not always appeal to unreasonable men, that it is not always true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath," and that right
does not always make might.

In short we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the
fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that
we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity,
and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.

These burdens and frustrations are accepted by most Americans with maturity and understanding. They may long for the days
when war meant charging up San Juan Hill, or when our isolation was guarded by two oceans, or when the atomic bomb was ours
alone, or when much of the industrialized world depended upon our resources and our aid. But they now know that those days
are gone and that gone with them are the old policies and the old complacencies. And they know, too, that we must make the
best of our new problems and our new opportunities, whatever the risk and the cost.

But there are others who cannot bear the burden of a long twilight struggle. They lack confidence in our long-run capacity
to survive and succeed. Hating communism, yet they see communism in the long run, perhaps, as the wave of the future. And
they want some quick and easy and final and cheap solution--now.

There are two groups of these frustrated citizens, far apart in their views yet very much alike in their approach. On the
one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender--appeasing our enemies, compromising our
commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed
the world of free choice would be smaller today.

On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war: equating negotiations with appeasement
and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place.

It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices:
appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only "hard" and
"soft" nations, hard and soft policies, hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course inevitably
leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means appeasement; the other believes that any arms buildup
means war. One group regards everyone else as warmongers; the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side admits
its path will lead to disaster, but neither can tell us how or where to draw the line once we descend the slippery slopes
of appeasement or constant intervention.

In short, while both extremes profess to be the true realists of our time, neither could be more unrealistic. While both claim
to be doing the nation a service, they could do it no greater disservice. For this kind of talk and easy solution to difficult
problems, if believed, could inspire a lack of confidence among our people when they must all--above all else--be united in
recognizing the long and difficult days that lie ahead. It could inspire uncertainty among our allies when above all else
they must be confident in us. And even more dangerously, it could, if believed, inspire doubt among our adversaries when they
must above all be convinced that we will defend our vital interests.

The essential fact that both of these groups fail to grasp is that diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another.
Either alone would fail. A willingness to resist force, unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence,
while a willingness to talk, unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster.

But as long as we know what comprises our vital interests and our long-range goals, we have nothing to fear from negotiations
at the appropriate time and nothing to gain by refusing to play a part in them. At a time when a single clash could escalate
overnight into a holocaust of mushroom clouds, a great power does not prove its firmness by leaving the task of exploring
the other's intentions to sentries or those without full responsibility. Nor can ultimate weapons rightfully be employed,
or the ultimate sacrifice rightfully demanded of our citizens, until every reasonable solution has been explored. "How many
wars," Winston Churchill has written, "have been averted by patience and persisting goodwill!...How many wars have been precipitated
by firebrands!"

If vital interests under duress can be preserved by peaceful means, negotiations will find that out. If our adversary will
accept nothing less than a concession of our rights, negotiations will find that out. And if negotiations are to take place,
this nation cannot abdicate to its adversaries the task of choosing the forum and the framework and the time.

For there are carefully defined limits within which any serious negotiations must take place. With respect to any future talks
on Germany and Berlin, for example, we cannot, on the one hand, confine our proposals to a list of concessions we are willing
to make, nor can we, on the other hand, advance any proposals which compromise the security of free Germans and West Berliners
or endanger their ties with the West.

No one should be under the illusion that negotiations for the sake of negotiations always advance the cause of peace. If for
lack of preparation they break up in bitterness, the prospects of peace have been endangered. If they are made a forum for
propaganda or a cover for aggression, the processes of peace have been abused.

But it is a test of our national maturity to accept the fact that negotiations are not a contest spelling victory or defeat.
They may succeed; they may fail. They are likely to be successful only if both sides reach an agreement which both regard
as preferable to the status quo--an agreement in which each side can consider its own situation can be improved. And this
is most difficult to obtain.

But, while we shall negotiate freely, we shall not negotiate freedom. Our answer to the classic question of Patrick Henry
is still "No." Life is not so dear and peace is not so precious "...as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery."
And that is our answer even though, for the first time since the ancient battles between Greek city-states, war entails the
threat of total annihilation, of everything we know, of society itself. For to save mankind's future freedom we must face
up to any risk that is necessary. We will always seek peace--but we will never surrender.

In short, we are neither "warmongers" nor "appeasers," neither "hard" nor "soft." We are Americans, determined to defend the
frontiers of freedom by an honorable peace if peace is possible, but by arms if arms are used against us. And if we are to
move forward in that spirit, we shall need all the calm and thoughtful citizens that this great university can produce, all
the light they can shed, all the wisdom they can bring to bear.

It is customary, both here and around the world, to regard life in the United States as easy. Our advantages are many. But
more than any other people on earth, we bear burdens and accept risks unprecedented in their size and their duration, not
for ourselves alone but for all who wish to be free. No other generation of free men in any country has ever faced so many
and such difficult challenges--not even those who lived in the days when this university was founded in 1861.

This nation was then torn by war. This territory had only the simplest elements of civilization. And this city had barely
begun to function. But a university was one of their earliest thoughts, and they summed it up in the motto that they adopted:
"Let there be light." What more can be said today regarding all the dark and tangled problems we face than: Let there be light.

Source: Department of State Bulletin, December 4, 1961: "Diplomacy and Defense: A Test of National Maturity."

Theodore Roosevelt, in his Autobiography (1913), discussed the presidential office in terms of what he called Buchanan Presidents and Lincoln Presidents. The former
category included those whose strict constitutional view led them to exercise power with undue restraint. Lincoln Presidents,
on the other hand, had used the office to its fullest extent, yet within the authority of the Constitution. Roosevelt, who
no doubt put himself in the Lincoln camp, regarded his successor (whose nomination Roosevelt had dictated) as a Buchanan President,
and strongly criticized Taft's conduct in office. In a series of lectures delivered at Columbia University in 1915 and 1916,
former President Taft answered Roosevelt's arguments with his own view of the office.

The true view of the executive functions is, as I conceive it, that the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly
and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and
necessary to its exercise. Such specific grant must be either in the federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed
in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public
interest. . . . The grants of executive power are necessarily in general terms in order not to embarrass the executive within
the field of action plainly marked for him, but his jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional
or statutory provision, or it does not exist.

There have not been wanting, however, eminent men in high public office holding a different view and who have insisted upon
the necessity for an undefined residuum of executive power in the public interest. They have not been confined to the present
generation. We may learn this from the complaint of a Virginia statesman, Abel P. Upshur, a strict constructionist of the
old school, who succeeded Daniel Webster as secretary of state under President Tyler. He was aroused by Story's commentaries
on the Constitution to write a monograph answering and criticizing them, and in the course of this he comments as follows
on the executive power under the Constitution:

The most defective part of the Constitution beyond all question, is that which related to the Executive Department. It is
impossible to read that instrument without being struck with the loose and unguarded terms in which the powers and duties
of the President are pointed out. So far as the legislature is concerned, the limitations of the Constitution are, perhaps,
as precise and strict as they could safely have been made; but in regard to the executive, the convention appears to have
studiously selected such loose and general expressions as would enable the President, by implication and construction, either
to neglect his duties or to enlarge his powers.

We have heard it gravely asserted in Congress that whatever power is neither legislative nor judiciary is, of course, executive,
and, as such, belongs to the President under the Constitution. How far a majority of that body would have sustained a doctrine so monstrous and so utterly at war with the whole genius
of our government it is impossible to say, but this, at least, we know, that it met with no rebuke from those who supported
the particular act of executive power, in defense of which it was urged. Be this as it may, it is a reproach to the Constitution
that the executive trust is so ill-defined as to leave any plausible pretense even to the insane zeal of party devotion for
attributing to the President of the United States the powers of a despot, powers which are wholly unknown in any limited monarchy
in the world.

The view that he takes as a result of the loose language defining the executive powers seems exaggerated. But one must agree
with him in his condemnation of the view of the executive power which he says was advanced in Congress. In recent years there
has been put forward a similar view by executive officials and to some extent acted on. Men who are not such strict constructionists
of the Constitution as Mr. Upshur may well feel real concern if such views are to receive the general acquiescence. Mr. Garfield,
when secretary of the interior under Mr. Roosevelt, in his final report to Congress in reference to the power of the executive
over the public domain, said:

Full power under the Constitution was vested in the executive branch of the government and the extent to which that power
may be exercised is governed wholly by the discretion of the executive unless any specific act has been prohibited either
by the Constitution or by legislation.

In pursuance of this principle, Mr. Garfield, under an act for the reclamation of arid land by irrigation which authorized
him to make contracts for irrigation works and incur liability equal to the amount on deposit in the Reclamation Fund, made
contracts with associations of settlers by which it was agreed that if these settlers would advance money and work, they might
receive certificates from the government engineers of the labor and money furnished by them, and that such certificates might
be received in the future in the discharge of their legal obligations to the government for water rent and other things under
the statute. It became necessary for the succeeding administration to pass on the validity of these government certificates.

They were held by Attorney General Wickersham to be illegal on the ground that no authority existed for their issuance. He
relied on the Floyd acceptances in 7th Wallace, in which recovery was sought in the Court of Claims on commercial paper in
the form of acceptances signed by Mr. Floyd when secretary of war and delivered to certain contractors. The Court held that
they were void because the secretary of war had no statutory authority to issue them. Mr. Justice Miller, in deciding the
case, said:

The answer which at once suggests itself to one familiar with the structure of our government, in which all power is delegated,
and is defined by law, constitutional or statutory, is that to one or both of these sources we must resort in every instance.
We have no officers in this government, from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under
the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority. And while some of these, as the President, the legislature, and the
judiciary, exercise powers in some sense left to the more general definitions necessarily incident to fundamental law found
in the Constitution, the larger portion of them are the creation of statutory law, with duties and powers prescribed and limited
by that law.

In the light of this view of the Supreme Court, it is interesting to compare the language of Mr. Roosevelt in his Notes for a Possible Autobiography on the subject of "Executive Powers," in which he says:

The most important factor in getting the right spirit in my administration, next to insistence upon courage, honesty, and
a genuine democracy of desire to serve the plain people, was my insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited
only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by Congress under its constitutional
powers. My view was that every executive officer and, above all, every executive officer in high position was a steward of
the people, bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people and not to content himself with the negative
merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt this view that what was imperatively necessary for
the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it.

My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such
action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to
be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power but I did
greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the common well-being of all our people whenever and
in whatever measure was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.

I may add that Mr. Roosevelt, by way of illustrating his meaning as to the differing usefulness of Presidents, divides the
Presidents into two classes and designates them as "Lincoln Presidents" and "Buchanan Presidents." In order more fully to
illustrate his division of Presidents on their merits, he places himself in the Lincoln class of Presidents and me in the
Buchanan class. The identification of Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Lincoln might otherwise have escaped notice, because there are
many differences between the two, presumably superficial, which would give the impartial student of history a different impression.

It suggests a story which a friend of mine told of his little daughter Mary. As he came walking home after a business day,
she ran out from the house to greet him, all aglow with the importance of what she wished to tell him. She said, "Papa, I
am the best scholar in the class." The father's heart throbbed with pleasure as he inquired, "Why, Mary, you surprise me.
When did the teacher tell you? This afternoon?" "Oh, no," Mary's reply was, "the teacher didn't tell me -- I just noticed
it myself."

My judgment is that the view of Mr. Garfield and Mr. Roosevelt, ascribing an undefined residuum of power to the President,
is an unsafe doctrine and that it might lead under emergencies to results of an arbitrary character, doing irremediable injustice
to private right. The mainspring of such a view is that the executive is charged with responsibility for the welfare of all
the people in a general way, that he is to play the part of a universal Providence and set all things right, and that anything
that in his judgment will help the people he ought to do, unless he is expressly forbidden not to do it. The wide field of
action that this would give to the executive, one can hardly limit. . . .

There is little danger to the public weal from the tyranny or reckless character of a President who is not sustained by the
people. The absence of popular support will certainly in the course of two years withdraw from him the sympathetic action
of at least one House of Congress, and by the control that that House has over appropriations, the executive arm can be paralyzed,
unless he resorts to a coup d'état, which means impeachment, conviction, and deposition. The only danger in the action of
the executive under the present limitations and lack of limitation of his powers is when his popularity is such that he can
be sure of the support of the electorate and therefore of Congress, and when the majority in the legislative halls respond
with alacrity and sycophancy to his will.

This condition cannot probably be long continued. We have had Presidents who felt the public pulse with accuracy, who played
their parts upon the political stage with histrionic genius and commanded the people almost as if they were an army and the
President their commander in chief. Yet, in all these cases, the good sense of the people has ultimately prevailed and no
danger has been done to our political structure and the reign of law has continued. In such times when the executive power
seems to be all prevailing, there have always been men in this free and intelligent people of ours who, apparently courting
political humiliation and disaster, have registered protest against this undue executive domination and this use of the executive
power and popular support to perpetuate itself.

The cry of executive domination is often entirely unjustified, as when the President's commanding influence only grows out
of a proper cohesion of a party and its recognition of the necessity for political leadership; but the fact that executive
domination is regarded as a useful ground for attack upon a successful administration, even when there is no ground for it,
is itself proof of the dependence we may properly place upon the sanity and clear perceptions of the people in avoiding its
baneful effects when there is real danger. Even if a vicious precedent is set by the Executive and injustice done, it does
not have the same bad effect that an improper precedent of a court may have; for one President does not consider himself bound
by the policies or constitutional views of his predecessors.

"What do the people of America want more than anything else?" Franklin D. Roosevelt asked in his unprecedented speech before
the Democratic Convention in Chicago that had just nominated him the presidential candidate. "Work and security. . . . They
are the spiritual values, the true goal toward which our efforts of reconstruction should lead." Roosevelt had entered politics
with the conviction that government was responsible for its citizens' welfare. As governor of New York he had sponsored the
Temporary Emergency Relief Administration that undertook relief and public works. In September 1931 it was the first agency
of its kind in the nation. Roosevelt's campaign address of October 13, 1932, a portion of which appears here, explained further
his views on social legislation.

The first principle I would lay down is that the primary duty rests on the community, through local government and private
agencies, to take care of the relief of unemployment. But we then come to a situation where there are so many people out of
work that local funds are insufficient.

It seems clear to me that the organized society known as the State comes into the picture at this point. In other words, the
obligation of government is extended to the next higher unit.

I practise what I preach. In 1930 the state of New York greatly increased its employment service and kept in close touch with
the ability of localities to take care of their own unemployed. But by the summer of 1931 it became apparent to me that actual
state funds and a state-supervised system were imperative.

I called a special session of the legislature, and they appropriated a fund of $20 million for unemployment relief, this fund
to be reimbursed to the state through the doubling of our income taxes. Thus the state of New York became the first among
all the states to accept the definite obligation of supplementing local funds where these local funds were insufficient.

The administration of this great work has become a model for the rest of the country. Without setting up any complex machinery
or any large overhead, the state of New York is working successfully through local agencies, and, in spite of the fact that
over a million people are out of work and in need of aid in this one state alone, we have so far met at least the bare necessities
of the case.

This past spring the legislature appropriated another $5 million, and on November 8 the voters will pass on a $30 million
bond issue to tide us over this winter and at least up to next summer. . . .

I am very certain that the obligation extends beyond the states and to the federal government itself, if and when it becomes
apparent that states and communities are unable to take care of the necessary relief work.

It may interest you to have me read a short quotation from my message to the legislature in 1931:

What is the State? It is the duly constituted representative of an organized society of human beings, created by them for
their mutual protection and well-being. One of the duties of the State is that of caring for those of its citizens who find
themselves the victims of such adverse circumstances as make them unable to obtain even the necessities of mere existence
without the aid of others.

In broad terms, I assert that modern society, acting through its government, owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation
or the dire want of any of its fellowmen and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot. To these unfortunate citizens
aid must be extended by the government, not as a matter of charity but as a matter of social duty.

That principle which I laid down in 1931, I reaffirm. I not only reaffirm it, I go a step further and say that where the State
itself is unable successfully to fulfill this obligation which lies upon it, it then becomes the positive duty of the federal
government to step in to help.

In the words of our Democratic national platform, the federal government has a "continuous responsibility for human welfare,
especially for the protection of children." That duty and responsibility the federal government should carry out promptly,
fearlessly, and generously.

It took the present Republican administration in Washington almost three years to recognize this principle. I have recounted
to you in other speeches, and it is a matter of general information, that for at least two years after the crash, the only
efforts made by the national administration to cope with the distress of unemployment were to deny its existence.

When, finally, this year, after attempts at concealment and minimizing had failed, it was at last forced to recognize the
fact of suffering among millions of unemployed, appropriations of federal funds for assistance to states were finally made.

I think it is fair to point out that a complete program of unemployment relief was on my recommendation actually under way
in the state of New York over a year ago; and that in Washington relief funds in any large volume were not provided until
this summer, and at that they were pushed through at the demand of Congress rather than through the leadership of the President
of the United States.

At the same time, I have constantly reiterated my conviction that the expenditures of cities, states, and the federal government
must be reduced in the interest of the nation as a whole. I believe that there are many ways in which such reduction of expenditures
can take place, but I am utterly unwilling that economy should be practised at the expense of starving people.

We must economize in other ways, but it shall never be said that the American people have refused to provide the necessities
of life for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to feed, clothe, and house themselves. The first obligation
of government is the protection of the welfare and well-being, indeed the very existence, of its citizens. . . .

The next question asks my attitude toward appropriations for public works as an aid to unemployment. I am perfectly clear as to the principles involved in this case also.

From the long-range point of view it would be advisable for governments of all kinds to set up in times of prosperity what
might be called a nest egg to be used for public works in times of depression. That is a policy which we should initiate when
we get back to good times.

But there is the immediate possibility of helping the emergency through appropriations for public works. One question, however,
must be answered first because of the simple fact that these public works cost money.

We all know that government treasuries, whether local or state or federal, are hard put to it to keep their budgets balanced;
and, in the case of the federal Treasury, thoroughly unsound financial policies have made its situation not exactly desperate
but at least threatening to future stability if the policies of the present administration are continued.

All public works, including federal, must be considered from the point of view of the ability of the government Treasury to
pay for them. There are two ways of paying for public works. One is by the sale of bonds. In principle, such bonds should
be issued only to pay for self-sustaining projects or for structures which will without question have a useful life over a
long period of years. The other method of payment is from current revenues, which in these days means in most cases added
taxes. We all know that there is a very definite limit to the increase of taxes above the present level.

From this point, therefore, I can go on and say that, if funds can be properly provided by the federal government for increased
appropriations for public works, we must examine the character of these public works. I have already spoken of that type which
is self-sustaining. These should be greatly encouraged. The other type is that of public works which are honestly essential
to the community. Each case must rest on its own merits.

It is impossible, for example, to say that all parks or all playgrounds are essential. One may be and another may not be.
If a school, for instance, has no playground, it is obvious that the furnishing of a playground is a necessity to the community.
But if the school already has a playground and some people seek merely to enlarge it, there may be a very definite question
as to how necessary that enlargement is.

Let me cite another example. I am much interested in providing better housing accommodations for the poor in our great cities.
If a slum area can be torn down and new modern buildings put up, I should call that almost a human necessity; but, on the
other hand, the mere erection of new buildings in some other part of the city while allowing the slums to remain raises at
once a question of necessity. I am confident that the federal government working in cooperation with states and cities can
do much to carry on increased public works and along lines which are sound from the economic and financial point of view.

Now I come to another question. I am asked whether I favor a system of unemployment insurance reserves made compulsory by the states, supplemented by a system of federally coordinated state employment offices to facilitate
the reemployment of jobless workers.

The first part of the question is directly answered by the Democratic platform, which advocates unemployment insurance under
state laws.

This is no new policy for me. I have advocated unemployment insurance in my own state for some time, and, indeed, last year
six Eastern governors were my guests at a conference which resulted in the drawing up of what might be called an ideal plan
of unemployment insurance.

This type of insurance is not a cure-all, but it provides at least a cushion to mitigate unemployment in times of depression.
It is sound if, after starting it, we stick to the principle of sound insurance financing. It is only where governments, as
in some European countries, have failed to live up to these sound principles that unemployment insurance has been an economic
failure.

As to the coordinated employment offices, I can only tell you that I was for the bills sponsored by Senator Wagner of my own
state and passed by the Congress. They created a nationally coordinated system of employment offices operated by the individual
states with the advisory cooperation of joint boards of employers and employees.

To my very great regret this measure was vetoed by the President of the United States. I am certain that the federal government
can, by furnishing leadership, stimulate the various states to set up and coordinate practical, useful systems.

I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that
keeps us free.

Each moment in history is a fleeting time, precious and unique. But some stand out as moments of beginning, in which courses
are set that shape decades or centuries.

This can be such a moment.

Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope that many of man's deepest aspirations can at last
be realized. The spiraling pace of change allows us to contemplate, within our own lifetime, advances that once would have
taken centuries.

In throwing wide the horizons of space, we have discovered new horizons on earth.

For the first time, because the people of the world want peace, and the leaders of the world are afraid of war, the times
are on the side of peace.

Eight years from now America will celebrate its 200th anniversary as a nation. Within the lifetime of most people now living,
mankind will celebrate that great new year which comes only once in a thousand years-the beginning of the third millennium.

What kind of nation we will be, what kind of world we will live in, whether we shape the future in the image of our hopes,
is ours to determine by our actions and our choices.

The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. This honor now beckons America-the chance to help lead the
world at last out of the valley of turmoil, and onto that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization.

If we succeed, generations to come will say of us now living that we mastered our moment, that we helped make the world safe
for mankind.

This is our summons to greatness.

I believe the American people are ready to answer this call.

The second third of this century has been a time of proud achievement. We have made enormous strides in science and industry
and agriculture. We have shared our wealth more broadly than ever. We have learned at last to manage a modern economy to assure
its continued growth.

We have given freedom new reach, and we have begun to make its promise real for black as well as for white.

We see the hope of tomorrow in the youth of today. I know America's youth. I believe in them. We can be proud that they are
better educated, more committed, more passionately driven by conscience than any generation in our history.

No people has ever been so close to the achievement of a just and abundant society, or so possessed of the will to achieve
it. Because our strengths are so great, we can afford to appraise our weaknesses with candor and to approach them with hope.

Standing in this same place a third of a century ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed a Nation ravaged by depression and
gripped in fear. He could say in surveying the Nation's troubles: "They concern, thank God, only material things."

Our crisis today is the reverse.

We have found ourselves rich in goods, but ragged in spirit; reaching with magnificent precision for the moon, but falling
into raucous discord on earth.

We are caught in war, wanting peace. We are torn by division, wanting unity. We see around us empty lives, wanting fulfillment.
We see tasks that need doing, waiting for hands to do them.

To a crisis of the spirit, we need an answer of the spirit.

To find that answer, we need only look within ourselves.

When we listen to "the better angels of our nature," we find that they celebrate the simple things, the basic things-such
as goodness, decency, love, kindness.

Greatness comes in simple trappings.

The simple things are the ones most needed today if we are to surmount what divides us, and cement what unites us.

To lower our voices would be a simple thing.

In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can
deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading.

We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another-until we speak quietly enough so that our words can
be heard as well as our voices.

For its part, government will listen. We will strive to listen in new ways-to the voices of quiet anguish, the voices that
speak without words, the voices of the heart-to the injured voices, the anxious voices, the voices that have despaired of
being heard.

Those who have been left out, we will try to bring in.

Those left behind, we will help to catch up.

For all of our people, we will set as our goal the decent order that makes progress possible and our lives secure.

As we reach toward our hopes, our task is to build on what has gone before-not turning away from the old, but turning toward
the new.

In this past third of a century, government has passed more laws, spent more money, initiated more programs, than in all our
previous history.

In pursuing our goals of full employment, better housing, excellence in education; in rebuilding our cities and improving
our rural areas; in protecting our environment and enhancing the quality of life-in all these and more, we will and must press
urgently forward.

We shall plan now for the day when our wealth can be transferred from the destruction of war abroad to the urgent needs of
our people at home.

The American dream does not come to those who fall asleep.

But we are approaching the limits of what government alone can do.

Our greatest need now is to reach beyond government, and to enlist the legions of the concerned and the committed.

What has to be done, has to be done by government and people together or it will not be done at all. The lesson of past agony
is that without the people we can do nothing; with the people we can do everything.

To match the magnitude of our tasks, we need the energies of our people-enlisted not only in grand enterprises, but more importantly
in those small, splendid efforts that make headlines in the neighborhood newspaper instead of the national journal.

With these, we can build a great cathedral of the spirit-each of us raising it one stone at a time, as he reaches out to his
neighbor, helping, caring, doing.

I do not offer a life of uninspiring ease. I do not call for a life of grim sacrifice. I ask you to join in a high adventure-one
as rich as humanity itself, and as exciting as the times we live in.

The essence of freedom is that each of us shares in the shaping of his own destiny.

Until he has been part of a cause larger than himself, no man is truly whole.

The way to fulfillment is in the use of our talents; we achieve nobility in the spirit that inspires that use.

As we measure what can be done, we shall promise only what we know we can produce, but as we chart our goals we shall be lifted
by our dreams.

No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not. To go forward at all is to go forward together.

This means black and white together, as one nation, not two. The laws have caught up with our conscience. What remains is
to give life to what is in the law: to ensure at last that as all are born equal in dignity before God, all are born equal
in dignity before man.

As we learn to go forward together at home, let us also seek to go forward together with all mankind.

Let us take as our goal: where peace is unknown, make it welcome; where peace is fragile, make it strong; where peace is temporary,
make it permanent.

After a period of confrontation, we are entering an era of negotiation.

Let all nations know that during this administration our lines of communication will be open.

We seek an open world-open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods and people-a world in which no people, great or small,
will live in angry isolation.

We cannot expect to make everyone our friend, but we can try to make no one our enemy.

Those who would be our adversaries, we invite to a peaceful competition-not in conquering territory or extending dominion,
but in enriching the life of man.

As we explore the reaches of space, let us go to the new worlds together-not as new worlds to be conquered, but as a new adventure
to be shared.

With those who are willing to join, let us cooperate to reduce the burden of arms, to strengthen the structure of peace, to
lift up the poor and the hungry.

But to all those who would be tempted by weakness, let us leave no doubt that we will be as strong as we need to be for as
long as we need to be.

Over the past twenty years, since I first came to this Capital as a freshman Congressman, I have visited most of the nations
of the world.

I have come to know the leaders of the world, and the great forces, the hatreds, the fears that divide the world.

I know that peace does not come through wishing for it-that there is no substitute for days and even years of patient and
prolonged diplomacy.

I also know the people of the world.

I have seen the hunger of a homeless child, the pain of a man wounded in battle, the grief of a mother who has lost her son.
I know these have no ideology, no race.

I know America. I know the heart of America is good.

I speak from my own heart, and the heart of my country, the deep concern we have for those who suffer, and those who sorrow.

I have taken an oath today in the presence of God and my countrymen to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
To that oath I now add this sacred commitment: I shall consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon,
to the cause of peace among nations.

Let this message be heard by strong and weak alike:

The peace we seek to win is not victory over any other people, but the peace that comes "with healing in its wings"; with
compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the
peoples of this earth to choose their own destiny.

Only a few short weeks ago, we shared the glory of man's first sight of the world as God sees it, as a single sphere reflecting
light in the darkness.

As the Apollo astronauts flew over the moon's gray surface on Christmas Eve, they spoke to us of the beauty of earth-and in
that voice so clear across the lunar distance, we heard them invoke God's blessing on its goodness.

In that moment, their view from the moon moved poet Archibald MacLeish to write:

"To see the earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves
as riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold-brothers who know now they are truly
brothers."

In that moment of surpassing technological triumph, men turned their thoughts toward home and humanity-seeing in that far
perspective that man's destiny on earth is not divisible; telling us that however far we reach into the cosmos, our destiny
lies not in the stars but on Earth itself, in our own hands, in our own hearts.

We have endured a long night of the American spirit. But as our eyes catch the dimness of the first rays of dawn, let us not
curse the remaining dark. Let us gather the light.

Our destiny offers, not the cup of despair, but the chalice of opportunity. So let us seize it, not in fear, but in gladness-and,
"riders on the earth together," let us go forward, firm in our faith, steadfast in our purpose, cautious of the dangers; but
sustained by our confidence in the will of God and the promise of man.

I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper
for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence
which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am
now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any
instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject
to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

John Adams's astute comments on the origin and growth of political parties were prompted by a pamphlet, Crisis, which had been sent to him by its author, William Keteltas. Adams, who had followed Washington in the presidency, had been
out of office for 11 years when he wrote this letter to Keteltas on November 25, 1812.

I have received your polite letter of the 6th of the month and your present of the Crisis. You will excuse a question or two. In page first, you say, "Our administrations, with the exception of Washington's, have
been party administrations." On what ground do you except Washington's? If by party you mean majority, his majority was the
smallest of the four in all his legislative and executive acts, though not in his election.

You say, "our divisions began with Federalism and anti-Federalism." Alas! they began with human nature; they have existed
in America from its first plantation. In every colony, divisions always prevailed. In New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts,
and all the rest, a court and country party have always contended. Whig and Tory disputed very sharply before the Revolution,
and in every step during the Revolution. Every measure of Congress, from 1774 to 1787, inclusively, was disputed with acrimony,
and decided by as small majorities as any question is decided in these days. We lost Canada then, as we are like to lose it
now, by a similar opposition. Away, then, with your false, though popular, distinctions in favor of Washington.

In page eleventh, you recommend a "constitutional rotation, to destroy the snake in the grass"; but the snake will elude your
snare. Suppose your president in rotation is to be chosen for Rhode Island. There will be a Federal and a Republican candidate
in that state. Every Federalist in the nation will vote for the former, and every Republican for the latter. The light troops
on both sides will skirmish; the same Northern and Southern distinctions will still prevail; the same running and riding;
the same railing and reviling; the same lying and libeling, cursing and swearing will still continue. The same caucusing,
assemblaging, and conventioning.

In the same page eleventh, you speak of a "portion of our own people who palsy the arm of the nation." There is too much truth
in this. When I was exerting every nerve to vindicate the honor, and demand a redress of the wrongs, of the nation against
the tyranny of France, the arm of the nation was palsied by one party. Now, Mr. Madison is acting the same part, for the same
ends, against Great Britain, the arm of the nation is palsied by the opposite party. And so it will always be while we feel
like colonists, dependent for protection on France or England; while we have so little national public opinion, so little
national principle, national feeling, national patriotism; while we have no sentiment of our own strength, power, and resources.

Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author, Charles Francis Adams, ed., 1850-1856, 10 vols.

When one surveys the world about him after the great storm, noting the marks of destruction and yet rejoicing in the ruggedness
of the things which withstood it, if he is an American he breathes the clarified atmosphere with a strange mingling of regret
and new hope. We have seen a world passion spend its fury, but we contemplate our Republic unshaken, and hold our civilization
secure. Liberty--liberty within the law--and civilization are inseparable, and though both were threatened we find them now
secure; and there comes to Americans the profound assurance that our representative government is the highest expression and
surest guaranty of both.

Standing in this presence, mindful of the solemnity of this occasion, feeling the emotions which no one may know until he
senses the great weight of responsibility for himself, I must utter my belief in the divine inspiration of the founding fathers.
Surely there must have been God's intent in the making of this new-world Republic. Ours is an organic law which had but one
ambiguity, and we saw that effaced in a baptism of sacrifice and blood, with union maintained, the Nation supreme, and its
concord inspiring. We have seen the world rivet its hopeful gaze on the great truths on which the founders wrought. We have
seen civil, human, and religious liberty verified and glorified. In the beginning the Old World scoffed at our experiment;
today our foundations of political and social belief stand unshaken, a precious inheritance to ourselves, an inspiring example
of freedom and civilization to all mankind. Let us express renewed and strengthened devotion, in grateful reverence for the
immortal beginning, and utter our confidence in the supreme fulfillment.

The recorded progress of our Republic, materially and spiritually, in itself proves the wisdom of the inherited policy of
noninvolvement in Old World affairs. Confident of our ability to work out our own destiny, and jealously guarding our right
to do so, we seek no part in directing the destinies of the Old World. We do not mean to be entangled. We will accept no responsibility
except as our own conscience and judgment, in each instance, may determine.

Our eyes never will be blind to a developing menace, our ears never deaf to the call of civilization. We recognize the new
order in the world, with the closer contacts which progress has wrought. We sense the call of the human heart for fellowship,
fraternity, and cooperation. We crave friendship and harbor no hate. But America, our America, the America builded on the
foundation laid by the inspired fathers, can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political
commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority.

I am sure our own people will not misunderstand, nor will the world misconstrue. We have no thought to impede the paths to
closer relationship. We wish to promote understanding. We want to do our part in making offensive warfare so hateful that
Governments and peoples who resort to it must prove the righteousness of their cause or stand as outlaws before the bar of
civilization.

We are ready to associate ourselves with the nations of the world, great and small, for conference, for counsel; to seek the
expressed views of world opinion; to recommend a way to approximate disarmament and relieve the crushing burdens of military
and naval establishments. We elect to participate in suggesting plans for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and would
gladly join in that expressed conscience of progress, which seeks to clarify and write the laws of international relationship,
and establish a world court for the disposition of such justiciable questions as nations are agreed to submit thereto. In
expressing aspirations, in seeking practical plans, in translating humanity's new concept of righteousness and justice and
its hatred of war into recommended action we are ready most heartily to unite, but every commitment must be made in the exercise
of our national sovereignty. Since freedom impelled, and independence inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment
is contrary to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic. This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It
is not aloofness, it is security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to the things which made us what
we are.

Today, better than ever before, we know the aspirations of humankind, and share them. We have come to a new realization of
our place in the world and a new appraisal of our Nation by the world. The unselfishness of these United States is a thing
proven; our devotion to peace for ourselves and for the world is well established; our concern for preserved civilization
has had its impassioned and heroic expression. There was no American failure to resist the attempted reversion of civilization;
there will be no failure today or tomorrow.

The success of our popular government rests wholly upon the correct interpretation of the deliberate, intelligent, dependable
popular will of America. In a deliberate questioning of a suggested change of national policy, where internationality was
to supersede nationality, we turned to a referendum, to the American people. There was ample discussion, and there is a public
mandate in manifest understanding.

America is ready to encourage, eager to initiate, anxious to participate in any seemly program likely to lessen the probability
of war, and promote that brotherhood of mankind which must be God's highest conception of human relationship. Because we cherish
ideals of justice and peace, because we appraise international comity and helpful relationship no less highly than any people
of the world, we aspire to a high place in the moral leadership of civilization, and we hold a maintained America, the proven
Republic, the unshaken temple of representative democracy, to be not only an inspiration and example, but the highest agency
of strengthening good will and promoting accord on both continents.

Mankind needs a world-wide benediction of understanding. It is needed among individuals, among peoples, among governments,
and it will inaugurate an era of good feeling to make the birth of a new order. In such understanding men will strive confidently
for the promotion of their better relationships and nations will promote the comities so essential to peace.

We must understand that ties of trade bind nations in closest intimacy, and none may receive except as he gives. We have not
strengthened ours in accordance with our resources or our genius, notably on our own continent, where a galaxy of Republics
reflects the glory of new-world democracy, but in the new order of finance and trade we mean to promote enlarged activities
and seek expanded confidence.

Perhaps we can make no more helpful contribution by example than prove a Republic's capacity to emerge from the wreckage of
war. While the world's embittered travail did not leave us devastated lands nor desolated cities, left no gaping wounds, no
breast with hate, it did involve us in the delirium of expenditure, in expanded currency and credits, in unbalanced industry,
in unspeakable waste, and disturbed relationships. While it uncovered our portion of hateful selfishness at home, it also
revealed the heart of America as sound and fearless, and beating in confidence unfailing.

Amid it all we have riveted the gaze of all civilization to the unselfishness and the righteousness of representative democracy,
where our freedom never has made offensive warfare, never has sought territorial aggrandizement through force, never has turned
to the arbitrament of arms until reason has been exhausted. When the Governments of the earth shall have established a freedom
like our own and shall have sanctioned the pursuit of peace as we have practiced it, I believe the last sorrow and the final
sacrifice of international warfare will have been written.

Let me speak to the maimed and wounded soldiers who are present today, and through them convey to their comrades the gratitude
of the Republic for their sacrifices in its defense. A generous country will never forget the services you rendered, and you
may hope for a policy under Government that will relieve any maimed successors from taking your places on another such occasion
as this.

Our supreme task is the resumption of our onward, normal way. Reconstruction, readjustment, restoration [--] all these must
follow. I would like to hasten them. If it will lighten the spirit and add to the resolution with which we take up the task,
let me repeat for our Nation, we shall give no people just cause to make war upon us; we hold no national prejudices; we entertain
no spirit of revenge; we do not hate; we do not covet; we dream of no conquest, nor boast of armed prowess.

If, despite this attitude, war is again forced upon us, I earnestly hope a way may be found which will unify our individual
and collective strength and consecrate all America, materially and spiritually, body and soul, to national defense. I can
vision the ideal republic, where every man and woman is called under the flag for assignment to duty for whatever service,
military or civic, the individual is best fitted; where we may call to universal service every plant, agency, or facility,
all in the sublime sacrifice for country, and not one penny of war profit shall inure to the benefit of private individual,
corporation, or combination, but all above the normal shall flow into the defense chest of the Nation. There is something
inherently wrong, something out of accord with the ideals of representative democracy, when one portion of our citizenship
turns its activities to private gain amid defensive war while another is fighting, sacrificing, or dying for national preservation.

Out of such universal service will come a new unity of spirit and purpose, a new confidence and consecration, which would
make our defense impregnable, our triumph assured. Then we should have little or no disorganization of our economic, industrial,
and commercial systems at home, no staggering war debts, no swollen fortunes to flout the sacrifices of our soldiers, no excuse
for sedition, no pitiable slackerism, no outrage of treason. Envy and jealousy would have no soil for their menacing development,
and revolution would be without the passion which engenders it.

A regret for the mistakes of yesterday must not, however, blind us to the tasks of today. War never left such an aftermath.
There has been staggering loss of life and measureless wastage of materials. Nations are still groping for return to stable
ways. Discouraging indebtedness confronts us like all the war-torn nations, and these obligations must be provided for. No
civilization can survive repudiation.

We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must. We must face the grim necessity,
with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by
man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature. Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the
same time do for it too little. We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid
and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice, and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so
essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future.

The business world reflects the disturbance of war's reaction. Herein flows the lifeblood of material existence. The economic
mechanism is intricate and its parts interdependent, and has suffered the shocks and jars incident to abnormal demands, credit
inflations, and price upheavals. The normal balances have been impaired, the channels of distribution have been clogged, the
relations of labor and management have been strained. We must seek the readjustment with care and courage. Our people must
give and take. Prices must reflect the receding fever of war activities. Perhaps we never shall know the old levels of wages
again, because war invariably readjusts compensations, and the necessaries of life will show their inseparable relationship,
but we must strive for normalcy to reach stability. All the penalties will not be light, nor evenly distributed. There is
no way of making them so. There is no instant step from disorder to order. We must face a condition of grim reality, charge
off our losses and start afresh. It is the oldest lesson of civilization. I would like government to do all it can to mitigate;
then, in understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common good, our tasks will be solved. No altered system
will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration
of our proven system.

The forward course of the business cycle is unmistakable. Peoples are turning from destruction to production. Industry has
sensed the changed order and our own people are turning to resume their normal, onward way. The call is for productive America
to go on. I know that Congress and the Administration will favor every wise Government policy to aid the resumption and encourage
continued progress.

I speak for administrative efficiency, for lightened tax burdens, for sound commercial practices, for adequate credit facilities,
for sympathetic concern for all agricultural problems, for the omission of unnecessary interference of Government with business,
for an end to Government's experiment in business, and for more efficient business in Government administration. With all
of this must attend a mindfulness of the human side of all activities, so that social, industrial, and economic justice will
be squared with the purposes of a righteous people.

With the nation-wide induction of womanhood into our political life, we may count upon her intuitions, her refinements, her
intelligence, and her influence to exalt the social order. We count upon her exercise of the full privileges and the performance
of the duties of citizenship to speed the attainment of the highest state.

I wish for an America no less alert in guarding against dangers from within than it is watchful against enemies from without.
Our fundamental law recognizes no class, no group, no section; there must be none in legislation or administration. The supreme
inspiration is the common weal. Humanity hungers for international peace, and we crave it with all mankind. My most reverent
prayer for America is for industrial peace, with its rewards, widely and generally distributed, amid the inspirations of equal
opportunity. No one justly may deny the equality of opportunity which made us what we are. We have mistaken unpreparedness
to embrace it to be a challenge of the reality, and due concern for making all citizens fit for participation will give added
strength of citizenship and magnify our achievement.

If revolution insists upon overturning established order, let other peoples make the tragic experiment. There is no place
for it in America. When World War threatened civilization we pledged our resources and our lives to its preservation, and
when revolution threatens we unfurl the flag of law and order and renew our consecration. Ours is a constitutional freedom
where the popular will is the law supreme and minorities are sacredly protected. Our revisions, reformations, and evolutions
reflect a deliberate judgment and an orderly progress, and we mean to cure our ills, but never destroy or permit destruction
by force.

I had rather submit our industrial controversies to the conference table in advance than to a settlement table after conflict
and suffering. The earth is thirsting for the cup of good will, understanding is its fountain source. I would like to acclaim
an era of good feeling amid dependable prosperity and all the blessings which attend.

It has been proved again and again that we cannot, while throwing our markets open to the world, maintain American standards
of living and opportunity, and hold our industrial eminence in such unequal competition. There is a luring fallacy in the
theory of banished barriers of trade, but preserved American standards require our higher production costs to be reflected
in our tariffs on imports. Today, as never before, when peoples are seeking trade restoration and expansion, we must adjust
our tariffs to the new order. We seek participation in the world's exchanges, because therein lies our way to widened influence
and the triumphs of peace. We know full well we cannot sell where we do not buy, and we cannot sell successfully where we
do not carry. Opportunity is calling not alone for the restoration, but for a new era in production, transportation and trade.
We shall answer it best by meeting the demand of a surpassing home market, by promoting self-reliance in production, and by
bidding enterprise, genius, and efficiency to carry our cargoes in American bottoms to the marts of the world.

We would not have an America living within and for herself alone, but we would have her self-reliant, independent, and ever
nobler, stronger, and richer. Believing in our higher standards, reared through constitutional liberty and maintained opportunity,
we invite the world to the same heights. But pride in things wrought is no reflex of a completed task. Common welfare is the
goal of our national endeavor. Wealth is not inimical to welfare; it ought to be its friendliest agency. There never can be
equality of rewards or possessions so long as the human plan contains varied talents and differing degrees of industry and
thrift, but ours ought to be a country free from the great blotches of distressed poverty. We ought to find a way to guard
against the perils and penalties of unemployment. We want an America of homes, illumined with hope and happiness, where mothers,
freed from the necessity for long hours of toil beyond their own doors, may preside as befits the hearthstone of American
citizenship. We want the cradle of American childhood rocked under conditions so wholesome and so hopeful that no blight may
touch it in its development, and we want to provide that no selfish interest, no material necessity, no lack of opportunity
shall prevent the gaining of that education so essential to best citizenship.

There is no short cut to the making of these ideals into glad realities. The world has witnessed again and again the futility
and the mischief of ill-considered remedies for social and economic disorders. But we are mindful today as never before of
the friction of modern industrialism, and we must learn its causes and reduce its evil consequences by sober and tested methods.
Where genius has made for great possibilities, justice and happiness must be reflected in a greater common welfare.

Service is the supreme commitment of life. I would rejoice to acclaim the era of the Golden Rule and crown it with the autocracy
of service. I pledge an administration wherein all the agencies of Government are called to serve, and ever promote an understanding
of Government purely as an expression of the popular will.

One cannot stand in this presence and be unmindful of the tremendous responsibility. The world upheaval has added heavily
to our tasks. But with the realization comes the surge of high resolve, and there is reassurance in belief in the God-given
destiny of our Republic. If I felt that there is to be sole responsibility in the Executive for the America of tomorrow I
should shrink from the burden. But here are a hundred millions, with common concern and shared responsibility, answerable
to God and country. The Republic summons them to their duty, and I invite co-operation.

I accept my part with single-mindedness of purpose and humility of spirit, and implore the favor and guidance of God in His
Heaven. With these I am unafraid, and confidently face the future.

I have taken the solemn oath of office on that passage of Holy Writ wherein it is asked: "What doth the Lord require of thee
but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" This I plight to God and country.

John Adams sent the following lucid essay to Hezekiah Niles, editor of the Weekly Register, on February 13, 1818, and Niles praised it three weeks later. "Those who delight to trace the early dawnings of the American
Revolution," wrote Niles in an editorial note, ". . . will be grateful for this tribute to the memory of the illustrious dead,
from the pen of such a distinguished co-adjutor and co-patriot, as John Adams." The essay may have produced more than gratitude;
it is thought that it inspired Niles to collect and publish his monumental Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America (1822), a leading source of our knowledge of the period.

The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of
the globe. And when and where are they to cease?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced.
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.
While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy according to the laws and constitution
derived to them from the God of nature, and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray
for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good.
But when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities
of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the Continental Congress and all the thirteen
state congresses, etc.

There might be, and there were, others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments
of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education; but believing allegiance and protection to be reciprocal, when protection
was withdrawn, they thought allegiance was dissolved.

Another alteration was common to all. The people of America had been educated in a habitual affection for England as their
mother country; and while they thought her a kind and tender parent (erroneously enough, however, for she never was such a
mother) no affection could be more sincere. But when they found her a cruel beldam, willing, like Lady Macbeth, to "dash their
brains out," it is no wonder if their filial affections ceased and were changed into indignation and horror.

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of
thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independent of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely
interesting to humanity to investigate and perpetuate to posterity.

To this end it is greatly to be desired that young gentlemen of letters in all the states, especially in the thirteen original
states, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing, task of searching and collecting all the records,
pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people and compose
them into an independent nation.

The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different; there was so great a variety of religions; they
were composed of so many different nations; their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance; and their intercourse
had been so rare and their knowledge of each other so imperfect that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the
same system of action was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it in so short a time and
by such simple means was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together:
a perfection of mechanism which no artist had ever before effected.

In this research, the glorioles of individual gentlemen and of separate states is of little consequence. The means and the
measures are the proper objects of investigation. These may be of use to posterity, not only in this nation, but in South
America and all other countries. They may teach mankind that revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken
rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice
and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness,
patience, and perseverance through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials, and melancholy disasters they may have
to encounter.

The town of Boston early instituted an annual oration on the 4th of July, in commemoration of the principles and feelings
which contributed to produce the Revolution. Many of those orations I have heard, and all that I could obtain I have read.
Much ingenuity and eloquence appears upon every subject except those principles and feelings. That of my honest and amiable
neighbor Josiah Quincy appeared to me the most directly to the purpose of the institution. Those principles and feelings ought
to be traced back for 200 years and sought in the history of the country from the first plantations in America. Nor should
the principles and feelings of the English and Scots toward the colonies through that whole period ever be forgotten. The
perpetual discordance between British principles and feelings and those of America, the next year after the suppression of
the French power in America, came to a crisis and produced an explosion.

It was not until after the annihilation of the French dominion in America that any British ministry had dared to gratify their
own wishes, and the desire of the nation, by projecting a formal plan for raising a national revenue from America by parliamentary
taxation. The first great manifestation of this design was by the order to carry into strict execution those acts of Parliament
which were well-known by the appellation of the Acts of Trade, which had lain a dead letter, unexecuted for half a century--and
some of them, I believe, for nearly a whole one.

This produced, in 1760 and 1761, an awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings, with an enthusiasm which
went on increasing till in 1775 it burst out in open violence, hostility, and fury.

The characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent and influential in this revival, from 1760 to 1766, were first and foremost,
before all and above all, James Otis; next to him was Oxenbridge Thatcher; next to him Samuel Adams; next to him John Hancock;
then Dr. Mayhew; then Dr. Cooper and his brother. Of Mr. Hancock's life, character, generous nature, great and disinterested
sacrifices, and important services, if I had forces, I should be glad to write a volume. But this I hope will be done by some
younger and abler hand.

Mr. Thatcher, because his name and merits are less known, must not be wholly omitted. This gentleman was an eminent barrister
at law, in as large practice as anyone in Boston. There was not a citizen of that town more universally beloved for his learning,
ingenuity, every domestic and social virtue, and conscientious conduct in every relation of life. His patriotism was as ardent
as his progenitors had been ancient and illustrious in this country. Hutchinson often said, "Thatcher was not born a plebeian,
but he was determined to die one." In May 1768, I believe, he was chosen by the town of Boston one of their representatives
in the legislature, a colleague with Mr. Otis, who had been a member from May 1761, and he continued to be reelected annually
till his death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected to fill his place, in the absence of Mr. Otis then attending the
congress at New York. Thatcher had long been jealous of the unbounded ambition of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content with the office of lieutenant governor, the command of the castle and its emoluments,
of judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, a seat in his Majesty's Council in the legislature, his brother-in-law secretary
of state by the king's commission, a brother of that secretary of state a judge of the Supreme Court and a member of Council;
now in 1760 and 1761 soliciting and accepting the office of chief justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, he concluded,
as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened friend of his country did, that he sought that office with the determined
purpose of determining all causes in favor of the ministry at St. James's and their servile Parliament.

His indignation against him henceforward, to 1765 when he died, knew no bounds but truth. I speak from personal knowledge,
for, from 1758 to 1765, I attended every superior and inferior court in Boston, and recollect not one in which he did not
invite me home to spend evenings with him, when he made me converse with him as well as I could on all subjects of religion,
morals, law, politics, history, philosophy, belle-lettres, theology, mythology, cosmogony, metaphysics (Locke, Clark, Leibniz,
Bolingbroke, Berkeley), the preestablished harmony of the universe, the nature of matter and of spirit, and the eternal establishment
of coincidences between their operations, fate, foreknowledge, absolute. We reasoned on such unfathomable subjects as high
as Milton's gentry in pandemonium; and we understood them as well as they did, and no better. To such mighty mysteries he
added the news of the day, and the tittle-tattle of the town.

But his favorite subject was politics, and the impending threatening system of parliamentary taxation and universal government
over the colonies. On this subject he was so anxious and agitated that I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death.
From the time when he argued the question of writs of assistance to his death, he considered the king, ministry, Parliament,
and nation of Great Britain as determined to new-model the colonies from the foundation; to annul all their charters, to constitute
them all royal governments; to raise a revenue in America by parliamentary taxation; to apply that revenue to pay the salaries
of governors, judges, and all other Crown officers; and after all this, to raise as large a revenue as they pleased, to be
applied to national purposes at the exchequer in England; and further to establish bishops and the whole system of the Church
of England, tithes and all, throughout all British America. This system, he said, if it was suffered to prevail, would extinguish
the flame of liberty all over the world; that America would be employed as an engine to batter down all the miserable remains
of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland, where only any semblance of it was left in the world. To this system he considered
Hutchinson, the Olivers, and all their connections, dependants, adherents, and shoelickers entirely devoted. He asserted that
they were all engaged with all the Crown officers in America and the understrappers of the ministry in England in a deep and
treasonable conspiracy to betray the liberties of their country for their own private, personal, and family aggrandizement.

His philippics against the unprincipled ambition and avarice of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled,
not only in private, confidential conversations but in all companies and on all occasions. He gave Hutchinson the sobriquet
of "Summa Potestatis," and rarely mentioned him but by the name of "Summa." His liberties of speech were no secrets to his
enemies. I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him over the bar, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley. They
hated him worse than they did James Otis, or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more, because they had no revenge for a father's
disappointment of a seat on the superior bench to impute to him, as they did to Otis; and Thatcher's character through life
had been so modest, decent, unassuming, his morals so pure, and his religion so venerated that they dared not attack him.
In his office were educated to the bar two eminent characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy, aptly called the Boston
Cicero.

Mr. Thatcher's frame was slender, his constitution delicate; whether his physicians overstrained his vessels with mercury
when he had the smallpox by inoculation at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public anxieties and exertions, the
smallpox left him in a decline from which he never recovered. Not long before his death he sent for me to commit to my care
some of his business at the bar. I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia Resolves:

Oh yes, they are men! They are noble spirits! It kills me to think of the lethargy and stupidity that prevails here. I long
to be out. I will go out. I will go out. I will go into court and make a speech which shall be read after my death as my dying
testimony against this infernal tyranny they are bringing upon us.

Seeing the violent agitation into which it threw him, I changed the subject as soon as possible, and retired. He had been
confined for some time. Had he been abroad among the people he would not have complained so pathetically of the "lethargy
and stupidity that prevailed," for town and country were all alive, and in August became active enough and some of the people
proceeded to unwarrantable excesses, which were more lamented by the patriots than by their enemies. Mr. Thatcher soon died,
deeply lamented by all the friends of their country.

Another gentleman who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution was Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant of the ancient governor of Martha's Vineyard. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and
America by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George II, 1749, and by many other writings,
particularly a sermon in 1750 on January 30, on the subject of passive obedience and nonresistance, in which the saintship
and martyrdom of King Charles I are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was
read by everybody, celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies.

During the reigns of King George I and King George II, the reigns of the Stuarts (the two Jameses and the two Charleses) were
in general disgrace in England. In America they had always been held in abhorrence. The persecutions and cruelties suffered
by their ancestors under those reigns had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to be raised up to
revive all their animosity against tyranny in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism,
and inconsistency. David Hume's plausible, elegant, fascinating, and fallacious apology, in which he varnished over the crimes
of the Stuarts, had not then appeared.

To draw the character of Mayhew would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his
great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death in 1766. In 1763
appeared the controversy between him and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson, and Archbishop Secker on the charter and conduct
of the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts. To form a judgment of this debate I beg leave to refer to a review
of the whole, printed at the time and written by Samuel Adams, though by some very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr.
Apthorp. If I am not mistaken, it will be found a model of candor, sagacity, impartiality, and close correct reasoning.

If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread a universal
alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension that bishops and dioceses and churches
and priests and tithes were to be imposed upon us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops
could appoint bishops in America without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us they could establish the Church
of England with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches as conventicles and
schism shops.

Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten. His good sense and sound judgment, the urbanity of his manners, his universal good character,
his numerous friends and connections, and his continual intercourse with all sorts of people, added to his constant attachment
to the liberties of his country, gave him a great and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.

Let me recommend these hints to the consideration of Mr. Wirt, whose life of Mr. Henry I have read with great delight. I think
that after mature investigation he will be convinced that Mr. Henry did not "give the first impulse to the ball of independence,"
and that Otis, Thatcher, Samuel Adams, Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing, and thousands of others were laboring for several years at
the wheel before the name of Mr. Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.

If you print this, I will endeavor to send you something concerning Samuel Adams, who was destined to a longer career, and
to act a more conspicuous and, perhaps, a more important part than any other man. But his life would require a volume.

Thomas Jefferson, whose election to the presidency had been hailed as the "revolution of 1800," was constantly denounced during
his two administrations (1801-1809) by the Federalist press. He was accused of everything from atheism to a desire to make
America a French satellite. His consequent dim view of the press, which he retained to the end of his life, is expressed in
this letter to John Norvell, dated June 14, 1807.

Your letter of May 9 has been duly received. The subject it proposes would require time and space for even moderate development.
My occupations limit me to a very short notice of them. I think there does not exist a good elementary work on the organization
of society into civil government. I mean a work which presents in one full and comprehensive view the system of principles
on which such an organization should be founded, according to the rights of nature. For want of a single work of that character,
I should recommend Locke on Government, Sidney, Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government, Chipman's Principles of Government, The Federalist. Adding, perhaps, Beccaria on crimes and punishments because of the demonstrative manner in which he has treated that branch
of the subject. If your views of political inquiry go further, to the subjects of money and commerce, Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read, unless Say's Political Economy can be had, which treats the same subject on the same principles, but in a shorter compass and more lucid manner. But I believe
this work has not been translated into our language.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is. But as we have employed some of the best materials of the British
constitution in the construction of our own government, a knowledge of British history becomes useful to the American politician.
There is, however, no general history of that country which can be recommended. The elegant one of Hume seems intended to
disguise and discredit the good principles of the government and is so plausible and pleasing in its style and manner as to
instill its errors and heresies insensibly into the minds of unwary readers. Baxter has performed a good operation on it.
He has taken the text of Hume as his groundwork, abridging it by the omission of some details of little interest, and wherever
he has found him endeavoring to mislead, by either the suppression of a truth or by giving it a false coloring, he has changed
the text to what it should be, so that we may properly call it Hume's history republicanized. He has, moreover, continued
the history (but indifferently) from where Hume left it, to the year 1800. The work is not popular in England because it is
republican; and but a few copies have ever reached America. It is a single quarto volume. Adding to this Ludlow's Memoirs, Mrs. Macauley's and Belknap's histories, a sufficient view will be presented of the free principles of the English constitution.

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer,
"by restraining it to true facts and sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy
truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned
prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being
put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations
to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of
my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing
in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period
of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed
be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected
a great portion of Europe to his will, etc., but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into
a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind
is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the first,
Truths; the second, Probabilities; the third, Possibilities; the fourth, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it
would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his
own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment
should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should
be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Such an editor, too, would have to set his face against the demoralizing practice of feeding the public mind habitually on
slander and the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life, insomuch
that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these
abominations still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation which should
fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, though they do not themselves.
It seems to escape them that it is not he who prints but he who pays for printing a slander who is its real author.

These thoughts on the subjects of your letter are hazarded at your request. Repeated instances of the publication of what
has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into
meanings imagined by their own wickedness only, justify my expressing a solicitude that this hasty communication may in nowise
be permitted to find its way into the public papers. Not fearing these political bulldogs, I yet avoid putting myself in the
way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteer away that portion of tranquillity which a firm execution of my duties
will permit me to enjoy.

On Monday evening, August 12, 1974, President Ford addressed a joint session of Congress. Although his remarks contained few
legislative proposals, they did set the tone of his administration by urging fiscal restraint to fight inflation and by suggesting
the willingness to veto any measures he deemed too costly. The purpose of the message was primarily to acquaint the American
people with their new President.

My fellow Americans, we have a lot of work to do. My former colleagues, you and I have a lot of work to do. Let's get on with
it.

Needless to say, I am deeply grateful for the wonderfully warm welcome. I can never express my gratitude adequately.

I am not here to make an inaugural address. The Nation needs action, not words. Nor will this be a formal report of the State
of the Union. God willing, I will have at least three more chances to do that.

It is good to be back in the People's House. But this cannot be a real homecoming. Under the Constitution, I now belong to
the executive branch. The Supreme Court has even ruled that I am the executive branch, head, heart, and hand.

With due respect to the learned Justices--and I greatly respect the judiciary--part of my heart will always be here on Capitol
Hill. I know well the co-equal role of the Congress in our constitutional process. I love the House of Representatives.

I revere the traditions of the Senate despite my too-short internship in that great body. As President, within the limits
of basic principles, my motto toward the Congress is communication, conciliation, compromise, and cooperation.

This Congress, unless it has changed, I am confident, will be my working partner as well as my most constructive critic. I
am not asking for conformity. I am dedicated to the two-party system, and you know which party I belong to.

I do not want a honeymoon with you. I want a good marriage.

I want progress, and I want problem-solving which requires my best efforts and also your best efforts.

I have no need to learn how Congress speaks for the people. As President, I intend to listen.

But I also intend to listen to the people themselves--all the people--as I promised last Friday. I want to be sure that we
are all tuned in to the real voice of America.

My Administration starts off by seeking unity in diversity. My office door has always been open, and that is how it is going
to be at the White House. Yes, Congressmen will be welcomed--if you don't overdo it. [Laughter]

The first seven words of the Constitution and the most important are these: We, the people of the United States. We, the people,
ordained and established the Constitution and reserved to themselves all powers not granted to Federal and State government.
I respect and will always be conscious of that fundamental rule of freedom.

Only 8 months ago, when I last stood here, I told you I was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Tonight I say I am still a Ford, but I
am not a Model T.

I do have some old-fashioned ideas, however. I believe in the very basic decency and fairness of America. I believe in the
integrity and patriotism of the Congress. And while I am aware of the House rule that no one ever speaks to the galleries,
I believe in the first amendment and the absolute necessity of a free press.

But I also believe that over two centuries since the First Continental Congress was convened, the direction of our Nation's
movement has been forward. I am here to confess that in my first campaign for President--of my senior class in South High
School in Grand Rapids, Michigan--I headed the Progressive Party ticket, and lost. Maybe that is why I became a Republican.
[Laughter]

Now I ask you to join with me in getting this country revved up and moving. . . .

The first specific request by the Ford Administration is not to Congress but to the voters in the upcoming November elections.
It is this, very simply: Support your candidates, Congressmen and Senators, Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals,
who consistently vote for tough decisions to cut the cost of government, restrain Federal spending, and bring inflation under
control.

I applaud the initiatives Congress has already taken. The only fault I find with the Joint Economic Committee's study on inflation,
authorized last week, is that we need its expert findings in 6 weeks instead of 6 months.

A month ago, the distinguished majority leader of the United States Senate asked the White House to convene an economic conference
of Members of Congress, the President's economic consultants, and some of the best economic brains from labor, industry, and
agriculture.

Later, this was perfected by resolution to assemble a domestic summit meeting to devise a bipartisan action for stability
and growth in the American economy. Neither I nor my staff have much time right now for letterwriting. So I will respond.
I accept the suggestion, and I will personally preside.

Furthermore, I propose that this summit meeting be held at an early date, in full view of the American public. They are as
anxious as we are to get the right answers.

My first priority is to work with you to bring inflation under control. Inflation is domestic enemy number one. To restore
economic confidence, the Government in Washington must provide some leadership. It does no good to blame the public for spending
too much when the Government is spending too much.

I began to put my Administration's own economic house in order starting last Friday.

I instructed my Cabinet officers and Counsellors and my White House Staff to make fiscal restraint their first order of business,
and to save every taxpayer's dollar the safety and genuine welfare of our great Nation will permit. Some economic activities
will be affected more by monetary and fiscal restraint than other activities. Good government clearly requires that we tend
to the economic problems facing our country in a spirit of equity to all of our citizens in all segments of our society.

Tonight, obviously, is no time to threaten you with vetoes. But I do have the last recourse, and I am a veteran of many a
veto fight right here in this great chamber. Can't we do a better job by reasonable compromise? I hope we can.

Minutes after I took the Presidential oath, the joint leadership of Congress told me at the White House they would go more
than half way to meet me. This was confirmed in your unanimous concurrent resolution of cooperation, for which I am deeply
grateful. If, for my part, I go more than half way to meet the Congress, maybe we can find a much larger area of national
agreement.

I bring no legislative shopping list here this evening. I will deal with specifics in future messages and talks with you,
but here are a few examples of how seriously I feel about what we must do together.

Last week, the Congress passed the elementary and secondary education bill, and I found it on my desk. Any reservations I
might have about some of its provisions--and I do have--fade in comparison to the urgent needs of America for quality education.
I will sign it in a few days.

I must be frank. In implementing its provisions, I will oppose excessive funding during this inflationary crisis.

As Vice President, I studied various proposals for better health care financing. I saw them coming closer together and urged
my friends in the Congress and in the Administration to sit down and sweat out a sound compromise. The Comprehensive Health
Insurance Plan goes a long ways toward providing early relief to people who are sick.

Why don't we write--and I ask this with the greatest spirit of cooperation--why don't we write a good health bill on the statute
books in 1974, before this Congress adjourns?

The economy of our country is critically dependent on how we interact with the economies of other countries. It is little
comfort that our inflation is only a part of a worldwide problem or that American families need less of their paychecks for
groceries than most of our foreign friends.

As one of the building blocks of peace, we have taken the lead in working toward a more open and a more equitable world economic
system. A new round of international trade negotiations started last September among 105 nations in Tokyo. The others are
waiting for the United States Congress to grant the necessary authority to the executive branch to proceed.

With modifications, the trade reform bill passed by the House last year would do a good job. I understand good progress has
been made in the Senate Committee on Finance. But I am optimistic, as always, that the Senate will pass an acceptable bill
quickly as a key part of our joint prosperity campaign.

I am determined to expedite other international economic plans. We will be working together with other nations to find better
ways to prevent shortages of food and fuel. We must not let last winter's energy crisis happen again. I will push Project
Independence for our own good and the good of others. In that, too, I will need your help.

Successful foreign policy is an extension of the hopes of the whole American people for a world of peace and orderly reform
and orderly freedom. So, I would say a few words to our distinguished guests from the governments of other nations where,
as at home, it is my determination to deal openly with allies and adversaries. Over the past 5 1/2 years in Congress and as
Vice President, I have fully supported the outstanding foreign policy of President Nixon. This policy I intend to continue.
. . .

Our job will not be easy. In promising continuity, I cannot promise simplicity. The problems and challenges of the world remain
complex and difficult. But we have set out on a path of reason, of fairness, and we will continue on it.

As guideposts on that path, I offer the following:

--To our allies of a generation in the Atlantic community and Japan, I pledge continuity in the loyal collaboration on our
many mutual endeavors.

--To our friends and allies in this hemisphere, I pledge continuity in the deepening dialog to define renewed relationships
of equality and justice.

--To our allies and friends in Asia, I pledge a continuity in our support for their security, independence, and economic development.
In Indochina, we are determined to see the observance of the Paris agreement on Vietnam and the cease-fire and negotiated
settlement in Laos. We hope to see an early compromise settlement in Cambodia.

--To the Soviet Union, I pledge continuity in our commitment to the course of the past 3 years. To our two peoples, and to
all mankind, we owe a continued effort to live and, where possible, to work together in peace; for in a thermonuclear age
there can be no alternative to a positive and peaceful relationship between our nations.

--To the People's Republic of China, whose legendary hospitality I enjoyed, I pledge continuity in our commitment to the principles
of the Shanghai communiqué. The new relationship built on those principles has demonstrated that it serves serious and objective
mutual interests and has become an enduring feature of the world scene.

--To the nations in the Middle East, I pledge continuity in our vigorous efforts to advance the progress which has brought
hopes of peace to that region after 25 years as a hotbed of war. We shall carry out our promise to promote continuing negotiations
among all parties for a complete, just, and lasting settlement.

--To all nations, I pledge continuity in seeking a common global goal: a stable international structure of trade and finance
which reflects the interdependence of all peoples.

--To the entire international community--to the United Nations, to the world's nonaligned nations, and to all others--I pledge
continuity in our dedication to the humane goals which throughout our history have been so much of America's contribution
to mankind.

So long as the peoples of the world have confidence in our purposes and faith in our word, the age-old vision of peace on
earth will grow brighter.

I should be destitute of feeling if I was not deeply affected by the strong proof which my fellow-citizens have given me of
their confidence in calling me to the high office whose functions I am about to assume. As the expression of their good opinion
of my conduct in the public service, I derive from it a gratification which those who are conscious of having done all that
they could to merit it can alone feel. My sensibility is increased by a just estimate of the importance of the trust and of
the nature and extent of its duties, with the proper discharge of which the highest interests of a great and free people are
intimately connected. Conscious of my own deficiency, I cannot enter on these duties without great anxiety for the result.
From a just responsibility I will never shrink, calculating with confidence that in my best efforts to promote the public
welfare my motives will always be duly appreciated and my conduct be viewed with that candor and indulgence which I have experienced
in other stations.

In commencing the duties of the chief executive office it has been the practice of the distinguished men who have gone before
me to explain the principles which would govern them in their respective Administrations. In following their venerated example
my attention is naturally drawn to the great causes which have contributed in a principal degree to produce the present happy
condition of the United States. They will best explain the nature of our duties and shed much light on the policy which ought
to be pursued in future.

From the commencement of our Revolution to the present day almost forty years have elapsed, and from the establishment of
this Constitution twenty-eight. Through this whole term the Government has been what may emphatically be called self-government.
And what has been the effect? To whatever object we turn our attention, whether it relates to our foreign or domestic concerns,
we find abundant cause to felicitate ourselves in the excellence of our institutions. During a period fraught with difficulties
and marked by very extraordinary events the United States have flourished beyond example. Their citizens individually have
been happy and the nation prosperous.

Under this Constitution our commerce has been wisely regulated with foreign nations and between the States; new States have
been admitted into our Union; our territory has been enlarged by fair and honorable treaty, and with great advantage to the
original States; the States, respectively protected by the National Government under a mild, parental system against foreign
dangers, and enjoying within their separate spheres, by a wise partition of power, a just proportion of the sovereignty, have
improved their police, extended their settlements, and attained a strength and maturity which are the best proofs of wholesome
laws well administered. And if we look to the condition of individuals what a proud spectacle does it exhibit! On whom has
oppression fallen in any quarter of our Union? Who has been deprived of any right of person or property? Who restrained from
offering his vows in the mode which he prefers to the Divine Author of his being? It is well known that all these blessings
have been enjoyed in their fullest extent; and I add with peculiar satisfaction that there has been no example of a capital
punishment being inflicted on anyone for the crime of high treason.

Some who might admit the competency of our Government to these beneficent duties might doubt it in trials which put to the
test its strength and efficiency as a member of the great community of nations. Here too experience has afforded us the most
satisfactory proof in its favor. Just as this Constitution was put into action several of the principal States of Europe had
become much agitated and some of them seriously convulsed. Destructive wars ensued, which have of late only been terminated.
In the course of these conflicts the United States received great injury from several of the parties. It was their interest
to stand aloof from the contest, to demand justice from the party committing the injury, and to cultivate by a fair and honorable
conduct the friendship of all. War became at length inevitable, and the result has shown that our Government is equal to that,
the greatest of trials, under the most unfavorable circumstances. Of the virtue of the people and of the heroic exploits of
the Army, the Navy, and the militia I need not speak.

Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live-a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact
is formed; a Government elective in all its branches, under which every citizen may by his merit obtain the highest trust
recognized by the Constitution; which contains within it no cause of discord, none to put at variance one portion of the community
with another; a Government which protects every citizen in the full enjoyment of his rights, and is able to protect the nation
against injustice from foreign powers.

Other considerations of the highest importance admonish us to cherish our Union and to cling to the Government which supports
it. Fortunate as we are in our political institutions, we have not been less so in other circumstances on which our prosperity
and happiness essentially depend. Situated within the temperate zone, and extending through many degrees of latitude along
the Atlantic, the United States enjoy all the varieties of climate, and every production incident to that portion of the globe.
Penetrating internally to the Great Lakes and beyond the sources of the great rivers which communicate through our whole interior,
no country was ever happier with respect to its domain. Blessed, too, with a fertile soil, our produce has always been very
abundant, leaving, even in years the least favorable, a surplus for the wants of our fellow-men in other countries. Such is
our peculiar felicity that there is not a part of our Union that is not particularly interested in preserving it. The great
agricultural interest of the nation prospers under its protection. Local interests are not less fostered by it. Our fellow-citizens
of the North engaged in navigation find great encouragement in being made the favored carriers of the vast productions of
the other portions of the United States, while the inhabitants of these are amply recompensed, in their turn, by the nursery
for seamen and naval force thus formed and reared up for the support of our common rights. Our manufactures find a generous
encouragement by the policy which patronizes domestic industry, and the surplus of our produce a steady and profitable market
by local wants in less-favored parts at home.

Such, then, being the highly favored condition of our country, it is the interest of every citizen to maintain it. What are
the dangers which menace us? If any exist they ought to be ascertained and guarded against.

In explaining my sentiments on this subject it may be asked, What raised us to the present happy state? How did we accomplish
the Revolution? How remedy the defects of the first instrument of our Union, by infusing into the National Government sufficient
power for national purposes, without impairing the just rights of the States or affecting those of individuals? How sustain
and pass with glory through the late war? The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore, and
to the faithful and able depositaries of their trust is the credit due. Had the people of the United States been educated
in different principles, had they been less intelligent, less independent, or less virtuous, can it be believed that we should
have maintained the same steady and consistent career or been blessed with the same success? While, then, the constituent
body retains its present sound and healthful state everything will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives
for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they
are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people
themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor
to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the
best means of preserving our liberties.

Dangers from abroad are not less deserving of attention. Experiencing the fortune of other nations, the United States may
be again involved in war, and it may in that event be the object of the adverse party to overset our Government, to break
our Union, and demolish us as a nation. Our distance from Europe and the just, moderate, and pacific policy of our Government
may form some security against these dangers, but they ought to be anticipated and guarded against. Many of our citizens are
engaged in commerce and navigation, and all of them are in a certain degree dependent on their prosperous state. Many are
engaged in the fisheries. These interests are exposed to invasion in the wars between other powers, and we should disregard
the faithful admonition of experience if we did not expect it. We must support our rights or lose our character, and with
it, perhaps, our liberties. A people who fail to do it can scarcely be said to hold a place among independent nations. National
honor is national property of the highest value. The sentiment in the mind of every citizen is national strength. It ought
therefore to be cherished.

To secure us against these dangers our coast and inland frontiers should be fortified, our Army and Navy, regulated upon just
principles as to the force of each, be kept in perfect order, and our militia be placed on the best practicable footing. To
put our extensive coast in such a state of defense as to secure our cities and interior from invasion will be attended with
expense, but the work when finished will be permanent, and it is fair to presume that a single campaign of invasion by a naval
force superior to our own, aided by a few thousand land troops, would expose us to greater expense, without taking into the
estimate the loss of property and distress of our citizens, than would be sufficient for this great work. Our land and naval
forces should be moderate, but adequate to the necessary purposes-the former to garrison and preserve our fortifications and
to meet the first invasions of a foreign foe, and, while constituting the elements of a greater force, to preserve the science
as well as all the necessary implements of war in a state to be brought into activity in the event of war; the latter, retained
within the limits proper in a state of peace, might aid in maintaining the neutrality of the United States with dignity in
the wars of other powers and in saving the property of their citizens from spoliation. In time of war, with the enlargement
of which the great naval resources of the country render it susceptible, and which should be duly fostered in time of peace,
it would contribute essentially, both as an auxiliary of defense and as a powerful engine of annoyance, to diminish the calamities
of war and to bring the war to a speedy and honorable termination.

But it ought always to be held prominently in view that the safety of these States and of everything dear to a free people
must depend in an eminent degree on the militia. Invasions may be made too formidable to be resisted by any land and naval
force which it would comport either with the principles of our Government or the circumstances of the United States to maintain.
In such cases recourse must be had to the great body of the people, and in a manner to produce the best effect. It is of the
highest importance, therefore, that they be so organized and trained as to be prepared for any emergency. The arrangement
should be such as to put at the command of the Government the ardent patriotism and youthful vigor of the country. If formed
on equal and just principles, it can not be oppressive. It is the crisis which makes the pressure, and not the laws which
provide a remedy for it. This arrangement should be formed, too, in time of peace, to be the better prepared for war. With
such an organization of such a people the United States have nothing to dread from foreign invasion. At its approach an overwhelming
force of gallant men might always be put in motion.

Other interests of high importance will claim attention, among which the improvement of our country by roads and canals, proceeding
always with a constitutional sanction, holds a distinguished place. By thus facilitating the intercourse between the States
we shall add much to the convenience and comfort of our fellow-citizens, much to the ornament of the country, and, what is
of greater importance, we shall shorten distances, and, by making each part more accessible to and dependent on the other,
we shall bind the Union more closely together. Nature has done so much for us by intersecting the country with so many great
rivers, bays, and lakes, approaching from distant points so near to each other, that the inducement to complete the work seems
to be peculiarly strong. A more interesting spectacle was perhaps never seen than is exhibited within the limits of the United
States-a territory so vast and advantageously situated, containing objects so grand, so useful, so happily connected in all
their parts!

Our manufacturers will likewise require the systematic and fostering care of the Government. Possessing as we do all the raw
materials, the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend in the degree we have done on supplies from other
countries. While we are thus dependent the sudden event of war, unsought and unexpected, can not fail to plunge us into the
most serious difficulties. It is important, too, that the capital which nourishes our manufacturers should be domestic, as
its influence in that case instead of exhausting, as it may do in foreign hands, would be felt advantageously on agriculture
and every other branch of industry. Equally important is it to provide at home a market for our raw materials, as by extending
the competition it will enhance the price and protect the cultivator against the casualties incident to foreign markets.

With the Indian tribes it is our duty to cultivate friendly relations and to act with kindness and liberality in all our transactions.
Equally proper is it to persevere in our efforts to extend to them the advantages of civilization.

The great amount of our revenue and the flourishing state of the Treasury are a full proof of the competency of the national
resources for any emergency, as they are of the willingness of our fellow-citizens to bear the burdens which the public necessities
require. The vast amount of vacant lands, the value of which daily augments, forms an additional resource of great extent
and duration. These resources, besides accomplishing every other necessary purpose, put it completely in the power of the
United States to discharge the national debt at an early period. Peace is the best time for improvement and preparation of
every kind; it is in peace that our commerce flourishes most, that taxes are most easily paid, and that the revenue is most
productive.

The Executive is charged officially in the Departments under it with the disbursement of the public money, and is responsible
for the faithful application of it to the purposes for which it is raised. The Legislature is the watchful guardian over the
public purse. It is its duty to see that the disbursement has been honestly made. To meet the requisite responsibility every
facility should be afforded to the Executive to enable it to bring the public agents intrusted with the public money strictly
and promptly to account. Nothing should be presumed against them; but if, with the requisite facilities, the public money
is suffered to lie long and uselessly in their hands, they will not be the only defaulters, nor will the demoralizing effect
be confined to them. It will evince a relaxation and want of tone in the Administration which will be felt by the whole community.
I shall do all I can to secure economy and fidelity in this important branch of the Administration, and I doubt not that the
Legislature will perform its duty with equal zeal. A thorough examination should be regularly made, and I will promote it.

It is particularly gratifying to me to enter on the discharge of these duties at a time when the United States are blessed
with peace. It is a state most consistent with their prosperity and happiness. It will be my sincere desire to preserve it,
so far as depends on the Executive, on just principles with all nations, claiming nothing unreasonable of any and rendering
to each what is its due.

Equally gratifying is it to witness the increased harmony of opinion which pervades our Union. Discord does not belong to
our system. Union is recommended as well by the free and benign principles of our Government, extending its blessings to every
individual, as by the other eminent advantages attending it. The American people have encountered together great dangers and
sustained severe trials with success. They constitute one great family with a common interest. Experience has enlightened
us on some questions of essential importance to the country. The progress has been slow, dictated by a just reflection and
a faithful regard to every interest connected with it. To promote this harmony in accord with the principles of our republican
Government and in a manner to give them the most complete effect, and to advance in all other respects the best interests
of our Union, will be the object of my constant and zealous exertions.

Never did a government commence under auspices so favorable, nor ever was success so complete. If we look to the history of
other nations, ancient or modern, we find no example of a growth so rapid, so gigantic, of a people so prosperous and happy.
In contemplating what we have still to perform, the heart of every citizen must expand with joy when he reflects how near
our Government has approached to perfection; that in respect to it we have no essential improvement to make; that the great
object is to preserve it in the essential principles and features which characterize it, and that is to be done by preserving
the virtue and enlightening the minds of the people; and as a security against foreign dangers to adopt such arrangements
as are indispensable to the support of our independence, our rights and liberties. If we persevere in the career in which
we have advanced so far and in the path already traced, we can not fail, under the favor of a gracious Providence, to attain
the high destiny which seems to await us.

In the Administrations of the illustrious men who have preceded me in this high station, with some of whom I have been connected
by the closest ties from early life, examples are presented which will always be found highly instructive and useful to their
successors. From these I shall endeavor to derive all the advantages which they may afford. Of my immediate predecessor, under
whom so important a portion of this great and successful experiment has been made, I shall be pardoned for expressing my earnest
wishes that he may long enjoy in his retirement the affections of a grateful country, the best reward of exalted talents and
the most faithful and meritorious service. Relying on the aid to be derived from the other departments of the Government,
I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty
that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our
favor.

Barack Obama: Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

By the time of the 2004 election campaign, political pundits routinely divided the United States into red and blue states,
whose color not only indicated which political party was locally dominant but also signified the supposed prevalence of a
set of social and cultural values. According to the received wisdom, the Republican red states—generally located in the South,
West, and lower Midwest—were conservative, God-fearing, pro-life, opposed to big government and same-sex marriage, small-town
and suburban, and enamored of NASCAR. The Democratic blue states—found mostly on the coasts, in the Northeast, and in the
Upper Midwest—were liberal, secular, politically correct, pro-choice, urban, and connoisseurs of wine, cheese, and latte.
Though the symbolic palette dated only to the 2000 election and reversed the colors theretofore generally used to represent
the Democratic and Republican parties, it was firmly established when Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated
Vietnam veteran who later prominently opposed the war, was chosen by the Democrats to face Republican incumbent George W.
Bush in one of the most partisan and polarizing presidential elections in recent American history. The keynote address at
the Democratic Convention (printed below) in Boston was delivered by Barack Obama, who was about to become only the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate. The child of an estranged Kenyan father and white Kansan mother and raised mostly in Hawaii,
Obama—a one-time community organizer, law professor, and author—became an instant national figure with his eloquent address,
in which he debunked the country's artificial red-blue division and offered ‘‘the audacity of hope,” a phrase that would become
the title of the book he published shortly before becoming a candidate for the 2008 presidential election.

On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for
the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this
stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding
goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study
in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying
here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil
rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton's army, marched
across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they
studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through FHA, and later moved west in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable
love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or “blessed,”
believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the
land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential. They're
both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with great pride.

I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious daughters.
I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before
me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation—not
because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on
a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, an insistence on small miracles. That we can
tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write
what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying
a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our
votes will be counted—at least, most of the time.

This year, in this election we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and
see how we're measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans—Democrats,
Republicans, Independents—I say to you tonight: We have more work to do. More work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg,
Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with
their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father that I met who was losing his job and
choking back the tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 dollars a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits
that he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has
the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.

Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government
to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the collar counties
around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. Go
into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach our kids to learn. They know that
parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and
eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all
their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every
child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.
And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer.
And that man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice because they've defined his
life. From his heroic service to Vietnam, to his years as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the
United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier
ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.

John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs
overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans
can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence,
so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the
constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties
nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes,
but it should never be the first option.

A while back, I met a young man named Shamus in a VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six two or
six three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week.
As I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and
service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might ever hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving
Shamus as well as he is serving us? I thought of the more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and
wives, friends and neighbors, who won't be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I had met who were
struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered,
but still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm's
way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families
while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the
war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be
defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served
with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous
individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we're all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters
to me, even if it's not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose
between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family
being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief—I
am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper—that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual
dreams and yet still come together as one American family. E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace
the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there
is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's
the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for
Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and
we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and
have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported it.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics
of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here—the almost
willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve
itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire
singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely
patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny
name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation: the belief in things not seen, the belief that
there are better days ahead.I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to
opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across
America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices,
and meet the challenges that face us. America!

Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do—if we do
what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people
will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as President, and John Edwards will be sworn in as Vice President,
and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and
God bless you.

Although the strife in Cuba was not a major issue in the presidential campaign of 1896, its importance for America was already
recognized by political leaders. In his final presidential message to Congress on December 7, 1896, Grover Cleveland reviewed
the unpleasant history of Spanish-Cuban relations and outlined what he felt were the alternatives open to the United States.
Cleveland reflected popular opinion in his earnest attempt to explore every peaceful means for a solution to the Cuban crisis.
The president realized that Cuba's proximity bound its fate to the United States, but his message, a portion of which appears
below, expressed his hope that U.S. intervention would not be necessary.

The insurrection in Cuba still continues with all its perplexities. It is difficult to perceive that any progress has thus
far been made toward the pacification of the island or that the situation of affairs as depicted in my last annual message
has in the least improved. If Spain still holds Havana and the seaports and all the considerable towns, the insurgents still
roam at will over at least two-thirds of the inland country. If the determination of Spain to put down the insurrection seems
but to strengthen with the lapse of time and is evinced by her unhesitating devotion of largely increased military and naval
forces to the task, there is much reason to believe that the insurgents have gained in point of numbers and character and
resources, and are none the less inflexible in their resolve not to succumb without practically securing the great objects
for which they took up arms.

If Spain has not yet reestablished her authority, neither have the insurgents yet made good their title to be regarded as
an independent state. Indeed, as the contest has gone on, the pretense that civil government exists on the island, except
so far as Spain is able to maintain it, has been practically abandoned. Spain does keep on foot such a government, more or
less imperfectly, in the large towns and their immediate suburbs. But, that exception being made, the entire country is either
given over to anarchy or is subject to the military occupation of one or the other party. It is reported, indeed, on reliable
authority that, at the demand of the commander in chief of the insurgent army, the putative Cuban government has now given
up all attempt to exercise its functions, leaving that government confessedly (what there is the best reason for supposing
it always to have been in fact) a government merely on paper.

Were the Spanish armies able to meet their antagonists in the open or in pitched battle, prompt and decisive results might
be looked for and the immense superiority of the Spanish forces in numbers, discipline, and equipment could hardly fail to
tell greatly to their advantage. But they are called upon to face a foe that shuns general engagements, that can choose and
does choose its own ground, that, from the nature of the country, is visible or invisible at pleasure, and that fights only
from ambuscade and when all the advantages of position and numbers are on its side. In a country where all that is indispensable
to life in the way of food, clothing, and shelter is so easily obtainable, especially by those born and bred on the soil,
it is obvious that there is hardly a limit to the time during which hostilities of this sort may be prolonged.

Meanwhile, as in all cases of protracted civil strife, the passions of the combatants grow more and more inflamed, and excesses
on both sides become more frequent and more deplorable. They are also participated in by bands of marauders, who, now in the
name of one party and now in the name of the other, as may best suit the occasion, harry the country at will and plunder its
wretched inhabitants for their own advantage. Such a condition of things would inevitably entail immense destruction of property,
even if it were the policy of both parties to prevent it as far as practicable. But while such seemed to be the original policy
of the Spanish government, it has now apparently abandoned it and is acting upon the same theory as the insurgents, namely,
that the exigencies of the contest require the wholesale annihilation of property that it may not prove of use and advantage
to the enemy.

It is to the same end that, in pursuance of general orders, Spanish garrisons are now being withdrawn from plantations and
the rural population required to concentrate itself in the towns. The sure result would seem to be that the industrial value
of the island is fast diminishing, and that unless there is a speedy and radical change in existing conditions, it will soon
disappear altogether. That value consists very largely, of course, in its capacity to produce sugar--a capacity already much
reduced by the interruptions to tillage which have taken place during the last two years. It is reliably asserted that should
these interruptions continue during the current year and practically extend, as is now threatened, to the entire sugar-producing
territory of the island, so much time and so much money will be required to restore the land to its normal productiveness
that it is extremely doubtful if capital can be induced to even make the attempt.

The spectacle of the utter ruin of an adjoining country, by nature one of the most fertile and charming on the globe, would
engage the serious attention of the government and people of the United States in any circumstances. In point of fact, they
have a concern with it which is by no means of a wholly sentimental or philanthropic character. It lies so near to us as to
be hardly separated from our territory. Our actual pecuniary interest in it is second only to that of the people and government
of Spain. It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30 million to $50 million of American capital are invested in plantations
and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba,
which in 1889 amounted to about $64 million, rose in 1893 to about $103 million, and in 1894, the year before the present
insurrection broke out, amounted to nearly $96 million.

Besides this large pecuniary stake in the fortunes of Cuba, the United States finds itself inextricably involved in the present
contest in other ways, both vexatious and costly. Many Cubans reside in this country and indirectly promote the insurrection
through the press, by public meetings, by the purchase and shipment of arms, by the raising of funds, and by other means,
which the spirit of our institutions and the tenor of our laws do not permit to be made the subject of criminal prosecutions.
Some of them, though Cubans at heart and in all their feelings and interests, have taken out papers as naturalized citizens
of the United States, a proceeding resorted to with a view to possible protection by this government and not unnaturally regarded
with much indignation by the country of their origin.

The insurgents are undoubtedly encouraged and supported by the widespread sympathy the people of this country always and instinctively
feel for every struggle for better and freer government and which, in the case of the more adventurous and restless elements
of our population, leads in only too many instances to active and personal participation in the contest. The result is that
this government is constantly called upon to protect American citizens, to claim damages for injuries to persons and property,
now estimated at many millions of dollars, and to ask explanations and apologies for the acts of Spanish officials, whose
zeal for the repression of rebellion sometimes blinds them to the immunities belonging to the unoffending citizens of a friendly
power. It follows from the same causes that the United States is compelled to actively police a long line of seacoast against
unlawful expeditions, the escape of which the utmost vigilance will not always suffice to prevent.

These inevitable entanglements of the United States with the rebellion in Cuba, the large American property interests affected,
and considerations of philanthropy and humanity in general, have led to a vehement demand in various quarters for some sort
of positive intervention on the part of the United States. It was at first proposed that belligerent rights should be accorded
to the insurgents--a proposition no longer urged because untimely and in practical operation clearly perilous and injurious
to our own interests. It has since been and is now sometimes contended that the independence of the insurgents should be recognized.
But imperfect and restricted as the Spanish government of the island may be, no other exists there--unless the will of the
military officer in temporary command of a particular district can be dignified as a species of government.

It is now also suggested that the United States should buy the island--a suggestion possibly worthy of consideration if there
were any evidence of a desire or willingness on the part of Spain to entertain such a proposal. It is urged, finally, that,
all other methods failing, the existing internecine strife in Cuba should be terminated by our intervention, even at the cost
of a war between the United States and Spain--a war which its advocates confidently prophesy could be neither large in its
proportions nor doubtful in its issue.

The correctness of this forecast need be neither affirmed nor denied. The United States has nevertheless a character to maintain
as a nation, which plainly dictates that right and not might should be the rule of its conduct. Further, though the United
States is not a nation to which peace is a necessity, it is in truth the most pacific of power and desires nothing so much
as to live in amity with all the world. Its own ample and diversified domains satisfy all possible longings for territory,
preclude all dreams of conquest, and prevent any casting of covetous eyes upon neighboring regions, however attractive.

That our conduct toward Spain and her dominions has constituted no exception to this national disposition is made manifest
by the course of our government, not only thus far during the present insurrection but during the ten years that followed
the rising at Yara in 1868. No other great power, it may safely be said, under circumstances of similar perplexity, would
have manifested the same restraint and the same patient endurance. It may also be said that this persistent attitude of the
United States toward Spain in connection with Cuba unquestionably evinces no slight respect and regard for Spain on the part
of the American people.

They in truth do not forget her connection with the discovery of the Western Hemisphere, nor do they underestimate the great
qualities of the Spanish people, nor fail to fully recognize their splendid patriotism and their chivalrous devotion to the
national honor. They view with wonder and admiration the cheerful resolution with which vast bodies of men are sent across
thousands of miles of ocean, and an enormous debt accumulated, that the costly possession of the Gem of the Antilles may still
hold its place in the Spanish Crown.

And yet neither the government nor the people of the United States have shut their eyes to the course of events in Cuba or
have failed to realize the existence of conceded grievances, which have led to the present revolt from the authority of Spain--grievances
recognized by the queen regent and by the Cortes, voiced by the most patriotic and enlightened of Spanish statesmen, without
regard to party, and demonstrated by reforms proposed by the executive and approved by the legislative branch of the Spanish
government. It is in the assumed temper and disposition of the Spanish government to remedy these grievances, fortified by
indications of influential public opinion in Spain, that this government has hoped to discover the most promising and effective
means of composing the present strife, with honor and advantage to Spain and with the achievement of all the reasonable objects
of the insurrection.

It would seem that if Spain should offer to Cuba genuine autonomy--a measure of home rule which, while preserving the sovereignty
of Spain, would satisfy all rational requirements of her Spanish subjects--there should be no just reason why the pacification
of the island might not be effected on that basis. Such a result would appear to be in the true interest of all concerned.
It would at once stop the conflict....

It would keep intact the possessions of Spain without touching her honor, which will be consulted rather than impugned by
the adequate redress of admitted grievances. It would put the prosperity of the island and the fortunes of its inhabitants
within their own control without severing the natural and ancient ties which bind them to the mother country, and would yet
enable them to test their capacity for self-government under the most favorable conditions.

It has been objected, on the one side, that Spain should not promise autonomy until her insurgent subjects lay down their
arms; on the other side, that promised autonomy, however liberal, is insufficient, because without assurance of the promise
being fulfilled. But the reasonableness of a requirement by Spain of unconditional surrender on the part of the insurgent
Cubans before their autonomy is conceded is not altogether apparent. It ignores important features of the situation--the stability
two years' duration has given to the insurrection; the feasibility of its indefinite prolongation in the nature of things
and as shown by past experience; the utter and imminent ruin of the island, unless the present strife is speedily composed;
above all, the rank abuses which all parties in Spain, all branches of her government, and all her leading public men concede
to exist and profess a desire to remove.

Facing such circumstances, to withhold the proffer of needed reforms until the parties demanding them put themselves at mercy
by throwing down their arms has the appearance of neglecting the gravest of perils and inviting suspicion as to the sincerity
of any professed willingness to grant reforms. The objection on behalf of the insurgents--that promised reforms cannot be
relied upon--must of course be considered, though we have no right to assume, and no reason for assuming, that anything Spain
undertakes to do for the relief of Cuba will not be done according to both the spirit and the letter of the undertaking.

Nevertheless, realizing that suspicions and precautions on the part of the weaker of two combatants are always natural and
not always unjustifiable, being sincerely desirous in the interest of both as well as on its own account that the Cuban problem
should be solved with the least possible delay, it was intimated by this government to the government of Spain some months
ago that, if a satisfactory measure of home rule were tendered the Cuban insurgents and would be accepted by them upon a guarantee
of its execution, the United States would endeavor to find a way not objectionable to Spain of furnishing such guarantee.
While no definite response to this intimation has yet been received from the Spanish government, it is believed to be not
altogether unwelcome, while, as already suggested, no reason is perceived why it should not be approved by the insurgents.

Neither party can fail to see the importance of early action, and both must realize that to prolong the present state of things
for even a short period will add enormously to the time and labor and expenditure necessary to bring about the industrial
recuperation of the island. It is therefore fervently hoped on all grounds that earnest efforts for healing the breach between
Spain and the insurgent Cubans, upon the lines above indicated, may be at once inaugurated and pushed to an immediate and
successful issue. The friendly offices of the United States, either in the manner above outlined or in any other way consistent
with our Constitution and laws, will always be at the disposal of either party.

Whatever circumstances may arise, our policy and our interests would constrain us to object to the acquisition of the island
or an interference with its control by any other power.

It should be added that it cannot be reasonably assumed that the hitherto expectant attitude of the United States will be
indefinitely maintained. While we are anxious to accord all due respect to the sovereignty of Spain, we cannot view the pending
conflict in all its features and properly apprehend our inevitably close relations to it and its possible results without
considering that, by the course of events, we may be drawn into such an unusual and unprecedented condition as will fix a
limit to our patient waiting for Spain to end the contest, either alone and in her own way or with our friendly cooperation.

When the inability of Spain to deal successfully with the insurrection has become manifest, and it is demonstrated that her
sovereignty is extinct in Cuba for all purposes of its rightful existence, and when a hopeless struggle for its reestablishment
has degenerated into a strife which means nothing more than the useless sacrifice of human life and the utter destruction
of the very subject matter of the conflict, a situation will be presented in which our obligations to the sovereignty of Spain
will be superseded by higher obligations, which we can hardly hesitate to recognize and discharge. Deferring the choice of
ways and methods until the time for action arrives, we should make them depend upon the precise conditions then existing;
and they should not be determined upon without giving careful heed to every consideration involving our honor and interest
or the international duty we owe to Spain. Until we face the contingencies suggested, or the situation is by other incidents
imperatively changed, we should continue in the line of conduct heretofore pursued, thus in all circumstances exhibiting our
obedience to the requirements of public law and our regard for the duty enjoined upon us by the position we occupy in the
family of nations.

A contemplation of emergencies that may arise should plainly lead us to avoid their creation, either through a careless disregard
of present duty or even an undue stimulation and ill-timed expression of feeling. But I have deemed it not amiss to remind
the Congress that a time may arrive when a correct policy and care for our interests, as well as a regard for the interests
of other nations and their citizens, joined by considerations of humanity and a desire to see a rich and fertile country,
intimately related to us, saved from complete devastation, will constrain our government to such action as will subserve the
interests thus involved and the same time promise to Cuba and its inhabitants an opportunity to enjoy the blessings of peace.

Source: [United States Department of State] Papers Relating to Foreign Relations of the United States, 1896, pp. xxvii-lxii.

During the debate on R.H. Lee's resolution for independence in June 1776, many of the old arguments for and against independence
were restated. Thomas Jefferson recorded the views of both sides in notes that he made during the proceedings of the Continental
Congress. These notes were later included in Jefferson's Autobiography.

Friday, June 7, 1776. The delegates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from their constituents, that the Congress should declare
that these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance
to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be totally
dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a confederation be
formed to bind the colonies more closely together.

The House being obliged to attend at that time to some other business, the proposition was referred to the next day, when
the members were ordered to attend punctually at 10 o'clock.

Saturday, June 8. They proceeded to take it into consideration and referred it to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately resolved
themselves, and passed that day and Monday, the 10th, in debating on the subject.

It was argued by Wilson, Robert R. Livingston, E. Rutledge, Dickinson, and others:

That, though they were friends to the measures themselves and saw the impossibility that we should ever again be united with
Great Britain, yet they were against adopting them at this time;

That the conduct we had formerly observed was wise and proper now, of deferring to take any capital step till the voice of
the people drove us into it;

That they were our power, and without them our declarations could not be carried into effect;

That the people of the middle colonies (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, and New York) were not yet ripe for
bidding adieu to British connection, but that they were fast ripening and in a short time would join in the general voice
of America;

That the resolution entered into by this House on the 15th of May for suppressing the exercise of all powers derived from
the Crown had shown, by the ferment into which it had thrown these middle colonies, that they had not yet accommodated their
minds to a separation from the mother country;

That some of them had expressly forbidden their delegates to consent to such a declaration, and others had given no instructions
and, consequently, no powers to give such consent;

That if the delegates of any particular colony had no power to declare such colony independent, certain they were the others
could not declare it for them, the colonies being as yet perfectly independent of each other;

That the Assembly of Pennsylvania was now sitting abovestairs, their convention would sit within a few days, the convention
of New York was now sitting, and those of the Jerseys and Delaware counties would meet on the Monday following; and it was
probable these bodies would take up the question of independence and would declare to their delegates the voice of their state;

That if such a declaration should now be agreed to, these delegates must retire, and possibly their colonies might secede
from the Union;

That such a secession would weaken us more than could be compensated by any foreign alliance;

That in the event of such a division, foreign powers would either refuse to join themselves to our fortunes, or, having us
so much in their power as that desperate declaration would place us, they would insist on terms proportionably more hard and
prejudicial;

That we had little reason to expect an alliance with those to whom alone, as yet, we had cast our eyes;

That France and Spain had reason to be jealous of that rising power which would one day certainly strip them of all their
American possessions;

That it was more likely they should form a connection with the British court, who, if they should find themselves unable otherwise
to extricate themselves from their difficulties, would agree to a partition of our territories, restoring Canada to France
and the Floridas to Spain, to accomplish for themselves a recovery of these colonies;

That it would not be long before we should receive certain information of the disposition of the French court from the agent
whom we had sent to Paris for that purpose;

That if this disposition should be favorable, by waiting the event of the present campaign, which we all hoped would be successful,
we should have reason to expect an alliance on better terms;

That this would in fact work no delay of any effectual aid from such ally, as, from the advance of the season and distance
of our situation, it was impossible we could receive any assistance during this campaign;

That it was prudent to fix among ourselves the terms on which we should form alliance before we declared we would form one
at all events;

And that if these were agreed on and our Declaration of Independence ready by the time our ambassador should be prepared to
sail, it would be as well as to go into that Declaration at this day.

On the other side it was urged by J. Adams, Lee, Wythe, and others:

That no gentleman had argued against the policy or the right of separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should
ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed its being now declared;

That the question was not whether, by a Declaration of Independence, we should make ourselves what we are not, but whether
we should declare a fact which already exists;

That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving
efficacy from our acquiescence only and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them, and that so far our connection
had been federal only and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities;

That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the last
act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us, a fact which had long ago
proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one
ceasing when the other is withdrawn;

That James II never declared the people of England out of his protection, yet his actions proved it and the Parliament declared
it;

No delegates then can be denied, or ever want, a power of declaring an existing truth;

That the delegates from the Delaware counties having declared their constituents ready to join, there are only two colonies,
Pennsylvania and Maryland, whose delegates are absolutely tied up, and that these had, by their instructions, only reserved
a right of confirming or rejecting the measure;

That the instructions from Pennsylvania might be accounted for from the times in which they were drawn, near a twelve-month
ago, since which the face of affairs has totally changed;

That within that time it had become apparent that Britain was determined to accept nothing less than a carte blanche, and that the King's answer to the lord mayor, alderman, and Common Council of London, which had come to hand four days ago,
must have satisfied everyone of this point;

That the people wait for us to lead the way;

That they are in favor of the measure, though the instructions given by some of their representatives are not;

That the voice of the representatives is not always consonant with the voice of the people, and that this is remarkably the
case in these middle colonies;

That the effect of the resolution of the 15th of May has proved this, which, raising the murmurs of some in the colonies of
Pennsylvania and Maryland, called forth the opposing voice of the freer part of the people and proved them to be the majority,
even in these colonies;

That the backwardness of these two colonies might be ascribed partly to the influence of proprietary power and connections,
and partly to their having not yet been attacked by the enemy;

That these causes were not likely to be soon removed, as there seemed no probability that the enemy would make either of these
the seat of this summer's war;

That it would be vain to wait either weeks or months for perfect unanimity, since it was impossible that all men should ever
become of one sentiment on any question;

That the conduct of some colonies, from the beginning of this contest, had given reason to suspect it was their settled policy
to keep in the rear of the Confederacy, that their particular prospect might be better even in the worst event;

That, therefore, it was necessary for those colonies who had thrown themselves forward and hazarded all from the beginning
to come forward now also, and put all again to their own hazard;

That the history of the Dutch revolution, of whom three states only confederated at first, proved that a secession of some
colonies would not be so dangerous as some apprehended;

That a Declaration of Independence alone could render it consistent with European delicacy for European powers to treat with
us, or even to receive an ambassador from us;

That till this they would not receive our vessels into their ports, nor acknowledge the adjudications of our Courts of Admiralty
to be legitimate in cases of capture of British vessels;

That, though France and Spain may be jealous of our rising power, they must think it will be much more formidable with the
addition of Great Britain, and will therefore see it their interest to prevent a coalition; but should they refuse, we shall
be but where we are; whereas, without trying, we shall never know whether they will aid us or not;

That the present campaign may be unsuccessful, and therefore we had better propose an alliance while our affairs wear a hopeful
aspect;

That to wait the event of this campaign will certainly work delay, because, during this summer, France may assist us effectually
by cutting off those supplies of provisions from England and Ireland on which the enemy's armies here are to depend; or by
setting in motion the great power they have collected in the West Indies, and calling our enemy to the defense of the possessions
they have there;

That it would be idle to lose time in settling the terms of alliance till we had first determined we would enter into alliance;

That it is necessary to lose no time in opening a trade for our people, who will want clothes and will want money, too, for
the payment of taxes;

And that the only misfortune is that we did not enter into alliance with France six months sooner, as, besides opening her
ports for the vent [sale] of our last year's produce, she might have marched an army into Germany and prevented the petty
princes there from selling their unhappy subjects to subdue us.

It appearing in the course of these debates that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and
South Carolina were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state, it
was thought most prudent to wait a while for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1; but, that this might occasion
as little delay as possible, a committee was appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee were John Adams,
Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and myself. Committees were also appointed at the same time to prepare
a plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper to be proposed for foreign alliance. The committee
for drawing the Declaration of Independence desired me to do it. It was accordingly done, and, being approved by them, I reported
it to the House on Friday, the 28th of June, when it was read and ordered to lie on the table.

On Monday, the 1st of July, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole and resumed the consideration of the original
motion made by the delegates of Virginia, which, being again debated through the day, was carried in the affirmative by the
votes of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.
South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. Delaware had but two members present, and they were divided. The delegates
from New York declared they were for it themselves, and were assured their constituents were for it, but that their instructions
having been drawn near a twelvemonth before, when reconciliation was still the general object, they were enjoined by them
to do nothing which should impede that object. They therefore thought themselves not justifiable in voting on either side
and asked leave to withdraw from the question, which was given them. The committee rose and reported their resolution to the
House.

Mr. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina then requested the determination might be put off to the next day, as he believed his
colleagues, though they disapproved of the resolution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity. The ultimate question,
whether the House would agree to the resolution of the committee, was accordingly postponed to the next day, when it was again
moved and South Carolina concurred in voting for it. In the meantime, a third member had come post from the Delaware counties
and turned the vote of that colony in favor of the resolution. Members of a different sentiment attending that morning from
Pennsylvania also, her vote was changed, so that the whole twelve colonies who were authorized to vote at all gave their voices
for it; and within a few days the convention of New York approved of it and thus supplied the void occasioned by the withdrawing
of her delegates from the vote.

Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and lain on the table
the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England
worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people
of England were struck out, lest they should give them offense. The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants
of Africa was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation
of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren, also, I believe, felt a little tender
under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers
of them to others.

The debates, having taken up the greater parts of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed.
The Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.

There is no constitutional or legal requirement that the President shall take the oath of office in the presence of the people,
but there is so manifest an appropriateness in the public induction to office of the chief executive officer of the nation
that from the beginning of the Government the people, to whose service the official oath consecrates the officer, have been
called to witness the solemn ceremonial. The oath taken in the presence of the people becomes a mutual covenant. The officer
covenants to serve the whole body of the people by a faithful execution of the laws, so that they may be the unfailing defense
and security of those who respect and observe them, and that neither wealth, station, nor the power of combinations shall
be able to evade their just penalties or to wrest them from a beneficent public purpose to serve the ends of cruelty or selfishness.

My promise is spoken; yours unspoken, but not the less real and solemn. The people of every State have here their representatives.
Surely I do not misinterpret the spirit of the occasion when I assume that the whole body of the people covenant with me and
with each other to-day to support and defend the Constitution and the Union of the States, to yield willing obedience to all
the laws and each to every other citizen his equal civil and political rights. Entering thus solemnly into covenant with each
other, we may reverently invoke and confidently expect the favor and help of Almighty God-that He will give to me wisdom,
strength, and fidelity, and to our people a spirit of fraternity and a love of righteousness and peace.

This occasion derives peculiar interest from the fact that the Presidential term which begins this day is the twenty-sixth
under our Constitution. The first inauguration of President Washington took place in New York, where Congress was then sitting,
on the 30th day of April, 1789, having been deferred by reason of delays attending the organization of the Congress and the
canvass of the electoral vote. Our people have already worthily observed the centennials of the Declaration of Independence,
of the battle of Yorktown, and of the adoption of the Constitution, and will shortly celebrate in New York the institution
of the second great department of our constitutional scheme of government. When the centennial of the institution of the judicial
department, by the organization of the Supreme Court, shall have been suitably observed, as I trust it will be, our nation
will have fully entered its second century.

I will not attempt to note the marvelous and in great part happy contrasts between our country as it steps over the threshold
into its second century of organized existence under the Constitution and that weak but wisely ordered young nation that looked
undauntedly down the first century, when all its years stretched out before it.

Our people will not fail at this time to recall the incidents which accompanied the institution of government under the Constitution,
or to find inspiration and guidance in the teachings and example of Washington and his great associates, and hope and courage
in the contrast which thirty-eight populous and prosperous States offer to the thirteen States, weak in everything except
courage and the love of liberty, that then fringed our Atlantic seaboard.

The Territory of Dakota has now a population greater than any of the original States (except Virginia) and greater than the
aggregate of five of the smaller States in 1790. The center of population when our national capital was located was east of
Baltimore, and it was argued by many well-informed persons that it would move eastward rather than westward; yet in 1880 it
was found to be near Cincinnati, and the new census about to be taken will show another stride to the westward. That which
was the body has come to be only the rich fringe of the nation's robe. But our growth has not been limited to territory, population
and aggregate wealth, marvelous as it has been in each of those directions. The masses of our people are better fed, clothed,
and housed than their fathers were. The facilities for popular education have been vastly enlarged and more generally diffused.

The virtues of courage and patriotism have given recent proof of their continued presence and increasing power in the hearts
and over the lives of our people. The influences of religion have been multiplied and strengthened. The sweet offices of charity
have greatly increased. The virtue of temperance is held in higher estimation. We have not attained an ideal condition. Not
all of our people are happy and prosperous; not all of them are virtuous and law-abiding. But on the whole the opportunities
offered to the individual to secure the comforts of life are better than are found elsewhere and largely better than they
were here one hundred years ago.

The surrender of a large measure of sovereignty to the General Government, effected by the adoption of the Constitution, was
not accomplished until the suggestions of reason were strongly reenforced by the more imperative voice of experience. The
divergent interests of peace speedily demanded a "more perfect union." The merchant, the shipmaster, and the manufacturer
discovered and disclosed to our statesmen and to the people that commercial emancipation must be added to the political freedom
which had been so bravely won. The commercial policy of the mother country had not relaxed any of its hard and oppressive
features. To hold in check the development of our commercial marine, to prevent or retard the establishment and growth of
manufactures in the States, and so to secure the American market for their shops and the carrying trade for their ships, was
the policy of European statesmen, and was pursued with the most selfish vigor.

Petitions poured in upon Congress urging the imposition of discriminating duties that should encourage the production of needed
things at home. The patriotism of the people, which no longer found afield of exercise in war, was energetically directed
to the duty of equipping the young Republic for the defense of its independence by making its people self-dependent. Societies
for the promotion of home manufactures and for encouraging the use of domestics in the dress of the people were organized
in many of the States. The revival at the end of the century of the same patriotic interest in the preservation and development
of domestic industries and the defense of our working people against injurious foreign competition is an incident worthy of
attention. It is not a departure but a return that we have witnessed. The protective policy had then its opponents. The argument
was made, as now, that its benefits inured to particular classes or sections.

If the question became in any sense or at any time sectional, it was only because slavery existed in some of the States. But
for this there was no reason why the cotton-producing States should not have led or walked abreast with the New England States
in the production of cotton fabrics. There was this reason only why the States that divide with Pennsylvania the mineral treasures
of the great southeastern and central mountain ranges should have been so tardy in bringing to the smelting furnace and to
the mill the coal and iron from their near opposing hillsides. Mill fires were lighted at the funeral pile of slavery. The
emancipation proclamation was heard in the depths of the earth as well as in the sky; men were made free, and material things
became our better servants.

The sectional element has happily been eliminated from the tariff discussion. We have no longer States that are necessarily
only planting States. None are excluded from achieving that diversification of pursuits among the people which brings wealth
and contentment. The cotton plantation will not be less valuable when the product is spun in the country town by operatives
whose necessities call for diversified crops and create a home demand for garden and agricultural products. Every new mine,
furnace, and factory is an extension of the productive capacity of the State more real and valuable than added territory.

Shall the prejudices and paralysis of slavery continue to hang upon the skirts of progress? How long will those who rejoice
that slavery no longer exists cherish or tolerate the incapacities it put upon their communities? I look hopefully to the
continuance of our protective system and to the consequent development of manufacturing and mining enterprises in the States
hitherto wholly given to agriculture as a potent influence in the perfect unification of our people. The men who have invested
their capital in these enterprises, the farmers who have felt the benefit of their neighborhood, and the men who work in shop
or field will not fail to find and to defend a community of interest.

Is it not quite possible that the farmers and the promoters of the great mining and manufacturing enterprises which have recently
been established in the South may yet find that the free ballot of the workingman, without distinction of race, is needed
for their defense as well as for his own? I do not doubt that if those men in the South who now accept the tariff views of
Clay and the constitutional expositions of Webster would courageously avow and defend their real convictions they would not
find it difficult, by friendly instruction and cooperation, to make the black man their efficient and safe ally, not only
in establishing correct principles in our national administration, but in preserving for their local communities the benefits
of social order and economical and honest government. At least until the good offices of kindness and education have been
fairly tried the contrary conclusion can not be plausibly urged.

I have altogether rejected the suggestion of a special Executive policy for any section of our country. It is the duty of
the Executive to administer and enforce in the methods and by the instrumentalities pointed out and provided by the Constitution
all the laws enacted by Congress. These laws are general and their administration should be uniform and equal. As a citizen
may not elect what laws he will obey, neither may the Executive eject which he will enforce. The duty to obey and to execute
embraces the Constitution in its entirety and the whole code of laws enacted under it. The evil example of permitting individuals,
corporations, or communities to nullify the laws because they cross some selfish or local interest or prejudices is full of
danger, not only to the nation at large, but much more to those who use this pernicious expedient to escape their just obligations
or to obtain an unjust advantage over others. They will presently themselves be compelled to appeal to the law for protection,
and those who would use the law as a defense must not deny that use of it to others.

If our great corporations would more scrupulously observe their legal limitations and duties, they would have less cause to
complain of the unlawful limitations of their rights or of violent interference with their operations. The community that
by concert, open or secret, among its citizens denies to a portion of its members their plain rights under the law has severed
the only safe bond of social order and prosperity. The evil works from a bad center both ways. It demoralizes those who practice
it and destroys the faith of those who suffer by it in the efficiency of the law as a safe protector. The man in whose breast
that faith has been darkened is naturally the subject of dangerous and uncanny suggestions. Those who use unlawful methods,
if moved by no higher motive than the selfishness that prompted them, may well stop and inquire what is to be the end of this.

An unlawful expedient can not become a permanent condition of government. If the educated and influential classes in a community
either practice or connive at the systematic violation of laws that seem to them to cross their convenience, what can they
expect when the lesson that convenience or a supposed class interest is a sufficient cause for lawlessness has been well learned
by the ignorant classes? A community where law is the rule of conduct and where courts, not mobs, execute its penalties is
the only attractive field for business investments and honest labor.

Our naturalization laws should be so amended as to make the inquiry into the character and good disposition of persons applying
for citizenship more careful and searching. Our existing laws have been in their administration an unimpressive and often
an unintelligible form. We accept the man as a citizen without any knowledge of his fitness, and he assumes the duties of
citizenship without any knowledge as to what they are. The privileges of American citizenship are so great and its duties
so grave that we may well insist upon a good knowledge of every person applying for citizenship and a good knowledge by him
of our institutions. We should not cease to be hospitable to immigration, but we should cease to be careless as to the character
of it. There are men of all races, even the best, whose coming is necessarily a burden upon our public revenues or a threat
to social order. These should be identified and excluded.

We have happily maintained a policy of avoiding all interference with European affairs. We have been only interested spectators
of their contentions in diplomacy and in war, ready to use our friendly offices to promote peace, but never obtruding our
advice and never attempting unfairly to coin the distresses of other powers into commercial advantage to ourselves. We have
a just right to expect that our European policy will be the American policy of European courts.

It is so manifestly incompatible with those precautions for our peace and safety which all the great powers habitually observe
and enforce in matters affecting them that a shorter waterway between our eastern and western seaboards should be dominated
by any European Government that we may confidently expect that such a purpose will not be entertained by any friendly power.

We shall in the future, as in the past, use every endeavor to maintain and enlarge our friendly relations with all the great
powers, but they will not expect us to look kindly upon any project that would leave us subject to the dangers of a hostile
observation or environment. We have not sought to dominate or to absorb any of our weaker neighbors, but rather to aid and
encourage them to establish free and stable governments resting upon the consent of their own people. We have a clear right
to expect, therefore, that no European Government will seek to establish colonial dependencies upon the territory of these
independent American States. That which a sense of justice restrains us from seeking they may be reasonably expected willingly
to forego.

It must not be assumed, however, that our interests are so exclusively American that our entire inattention to any events
that may transpire elsewhere can be taken for granted. Our citizens domiciled for purposes of trade in all countries and in
many of the islands of the sea demand and will have our adequate care in their personal and commercial rights. The necessities
of our Navy require convenient coaling stations and dock and harbor privileges. These and other trading privileges we will
feel free to obtain only by means that do not in any degree partake of coercion, however feeble the government from which
we ask such concessions. But having fairly obtained them by methods and for purposes entirely consistent with the most friendly
disposition toward all other powers, our consent will be necessary to any modification or impairment of the concession.

We shall neither fail to respect the flag of any friendly nation or the just rights of its citizens, nor to exact the like
treatment for our own. Calmness, justice, and consideration should characterize our diplomacy. The offices of an intelligent
diplomacy or of friendly arbitration in proper cases should be adequate to the peaceful adjustment of all international difficulties.
By such methods we will make our contribution to the world's peace, which no nation values more highly, and avoid the opprobrium
which must fall upon the nation that ruthlessly breaks it.

The duty devolved by law upon the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint
all public officers whose appointment is not otherwise provided for in the Constitution or by act of Congress has become very
burdensome and its wise and efficient discharge full of difficulty. The civil list is so large that a personal knowledge of
any large number of the applicants is impossible. The President must rely upon the representations of others, and these are
often made inconsiderately and without any just sense of responsibility. I have a right, I think, to insist that those who
volunteer or are invited to give advice as to appointments shall exercise consideration and fidelity. A high sense of duty
and an ambition to improve the service should characterize all public officers.

There are many ways in which the convenience and comfort of those who have business with our public offices may be promoted
by a thoughtful and obliging officer, and I shall expect those whom I may appoint to justify their selection by a conspicuous
efficiency in the discharge of their duties. Honorable party service will certainly not be esteemed by me a disqualification
for public office, but it will in no case be allowed to serve as a shield of official negligence, incompetency, or delinquency.
It is entirely creditable to seek public office by proper methods and with proper motives, and all applicants will be treated
with consideration; but I shall need, and the heads of Departments will need, time for inquiry and deliberation. Persistent
importunity will not, therefore, be the best support of an application for office. Heads of Departments, bureaus, and all
other public officers having any duty connected therewith will be expected to enforce the civil-service law fully and without
evasion. Beyond this obvious duty I hope to do something more to advance the reform of the civil service. The ideal, or even
my own ideal, I shall probably not attain. Retrospect will be a safer basis of judgment than promises. We shall not, however,
I am sure, be able to put our civil service upon a nonpartisan basis until we have secured an incumbency that fair-minded
men of the opposition will approve for impartiality and integrity. As the number of such in the civil list is increased removals
from office will diminish.

While a Treasury surplus is not the greatest evil, it is a serious evil. Our revenue should be ample to meet the ordinary
annual demands upon our Treasury, with a sufficient margin for those extraordinary but scarcely less imperative demands which
arise now and then. Expenditure should always be made with economy and only upon public necessity. Wastefulness, profligacy,
or favoritism in public expenditures is criminal. But there is nothing in the condition of our country or of our people to
suggest that anything presently necessary to the public prosperity, security, or honor should be unduly postponed.

It will be the duty of Congress wisely to forecast and estimate these extraordinary demands, and, having added them to our
ordinary expenditures, to so adjust our revenue laws that no considerable annual surplus will remain. We will fortunately
be able to apply to the redemption of the public debt any small and unforeseen excess of revenue. This is better than to reduce
our income below our necessary expenditures, with the resulting choice between another change of our revenue laws and an increase
of the public debt. It is quite possible, I am sure, to effect the necessary reduction in our revenues without breaking down
our protective tariff or seriously injuring any domestic industry.

The construction of a sufficient number of modern war ships and of their necessary armament should progress as rapidly as
is consistent with care and perfection in plans and workmanship. The spirit, courage, and skill of our naval officers and
seamen have many times in our history given to weak ships and inefficient guns a rating greatly beyond that of the naval list.
That they will again do so upon occasion I do not doubt; but they ought not, by premeditation or neglect, to be left to the
risks and exigencies of an unequal combat. We should encourage the establishment of American steamship lines. The exchanges
of commerce demand stated, reliable, and rapid means of communication, and until these are provided the development of our
trade with the States lying south of us is impossible.

Our pension laws should give more adequate and discriminating relief to the Union soldiers and sailors and to their widows
and orphans. Such occasions as this should remind us that we owe everything to their valor and sacrifice.

It is a subject of congratulation that there is a near prospect of the admission into the Union of the Dakotas and Montana
and Washington Territories. This act of justice has been unreasonably delayed in the case of some of them. The people who
have settled these Territories are intelligent, enterprising, and patriotic, and the accession [of] these new States will
add strength to the nation. It is due to the settlers in the Territories who have availed themselves of the invitations of
our land laws to make homes upon the public domain that their titles should be speedily adjusted and their honest entries
confirmed by patent.

It is very gratifying to observe the general interest now being manifested in the reform of our election laws. Those who have
been for years calling attention to the pressing necessity of throwing about the ballot box and about the elector further
safeguards, in order that our elections might not only be free and pure, but might clearly appear to be so, will welcome the
accession of any who did not so soon discover the need of reform. The National Congress has not as yet taken control of elections
in that case over which the Constitution gives it jurisdiction, but has accepted and adopted the election laws of the several
States, provided penalties for their violation and a method of supervision. Only the inefficiency of the State laws or an
unfair partisan administration of them could suggest a departure from this policy.

It was clearly, however, in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that such an exigency might arise, and provision
was wisely made for it. The freedom of the ballot is a condition of our national life, and no power vested in Congress or
in the Executive to secure or perpetuate it should remain unused upon occasion. The people of all the Congressional districts
have an equal interest that the election in each shall truly express the views and wishes of a majority of the qualified electors
residing within it. The results of such elections are not local, and the insistence of electors residing in other districts
that they shall be pure and free does not savor at all of impertinence.

If in any of the States the public security is thought to be threatened by ignorance among the electors, the obvious remedy
is education. The sympathy and help of our people will not be withheld from any community struggling with special embarrassments
or difficulties connected with the suffrage if the remedies proposed proceed upon lawful lines and are promoted by just and
honorable methods. How shall those who practice election frauds recover that respect for the sanctity of the ballot which
is the first condition and obligation of good citizenship? The man who has come to regard the ballot box as a juggler's hat
has renounced his allegiance.

Let us exalt patriotism and moderate our party contentions. Let those who would die for the flag on the field of battle give
a better proof of their patriotism and a higher glory to their country by promoting fraternity and justice. A party success
that is achieved by unfair methods or by practices that partake of revolution is hurtful and evanescent even from a party
standpoint. We should hold our differing opinions in mutual respect, and, having submitted them to the arbitrament of the
ballot, should accept an adverse judgment with the same respect that we would have demanded of our opponents if the decision
had been in our favor.

No other people have a government more worthy of their respect and love or a land so magnificent in extent, so pleasant to
look upon, and so full of generous suggestion to enterprise and labor. God has placed upon our head a diadem and has laid
at our feet power and wealth beyond definition or calculation. But we must not forget that we take these gifts upon the condition
that justice and mercy shall hold the reins of power and that the upward avenues of hope shall be free to all the people.

I do not mistrust the future. Dangers have been in frequent ambush along our path, but we have uncovered and vanquished them
all. Passion has swept some of our communities, but only to give us a new demonstration that the great body of our people
are stable, patriotic, and law-abiding. No political party can long pursue advantage at the expense of public honor or by
rude and indecent methods without protest and fatal disaffection in its own body. The peaceful agencies of commerce are more
fully revealing the necessary unity of all our communities, and the increasing intercourse of our people is promoting mutual
respect. We shall find unalloyed pleasure in the revelation which our next census will make of the swift development of the
great resources of some of the States. Each State will bring its generous contribution to the great aggregate of the nation's
increase. And when the harvests from the fields, the cattle from the hills, and the ores of the earth shall have been weighed,
counted, and valued, we will turn from them all to crown with the highest honor the State that has most promoted education,
virtue, justice, and patriotism among its people.

The campaign of 1912 pitted four remarkable men against each other for the presidency, all of them with significant reform
backgrounds. William Howard Taft, the incumbent, had the support of the regular Republicans and of some of the old-guard Progressives.
Theodore Roosevelt was backed by most of the Progressives, who had banded together to organize the rump Republican "Bull Moose"
Party. Eugene Debs was the Socialist candidate. And Woodrow Wilson, the enlightened governor of New Jersey, ex-professor of
political science and ex-president of Princeton University, was the choice of the Democrats. Failing at first to find an issue
with which to stir the voters, Wilson was persuaded by Louis D. Brandeis to stress the problem of the trusts, and with his
oratorical gifts he was able to turn it into what was almost a one-man crusade. A portion of Wilson's campaign speech at Lincoln,
Nebraska, delivered on October 5, 1912, is reprinted here.

We are not going to discuss tonight the sympathies, the susceptibilities, the enthusiasms of the several men who are seeking
your suffrages for President of the United States. I am perfectly ready to believe and will admit for the sake of argument
that Mr. Roosevelt's heart and soul are committed to that part of the third-term program which contains those hopeful plans
of human betterment in which so many noble men and women in this country have enlisted their sympathies and their energies.

I am not here to criticize anybody who has been drawn to that party because of that part of the program. But I want to call
their attention to the fact that you can't have a program that you can carry out through a resisting and unsuitable medium,
and that the thing that it is absolutely necessary for every candid voter to remember with regard to the third party is that
the means of government, the means of getting the things that this country needs, are exactly the same on that side that they
are on the side where Mr. Taft seeks the suffrages of the country.

Because, while the party of Mr. Taft says in its platform that monopoly ought not to exist, the section of the Republican
Party that is following Mr. Roosevelt subscribes to the statement that monopoly ought to be adopted by the law, and by regulation
should be the governing force in the development of American industry. So that all that the third party asks of the monopolists
is that they should cooperate, and the only hope of a program of human uplift from that party is that the monopolists will
cooperate.

Have you got any hopes in that direction? Don't you know what the Republican Party has provided you with up to this time?
I have taken special pains to clear from my own mind, at any rate, the Republican conception of government. That conception
is that the people cannot organize their opinion in such fashion as to control their own government. And that, therefore,
it is necessary constantly to consult those whose material interests in the development of the country are larger than anybody
else's, and then, through the hands of these trustees, administer the government, not through the people but for the people.

I am perfectly ready to believe -- knowing some of the men concerned as I do, I must believe --that a great many men now engaged
in the promotion of monopoly in this country really wish to see the United States prosperous, and really desire to adopt the
means that will make it prosperous. But they are not willing to let anybody else yield the means of prosperity except themselves.
I wonder at the frame of mind which makes them believe that they are the trustees of political discretion in this country,
but I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that that is their candid and deliberate judgment.

What we have to fight, therefore, is not a body of deliberate enemies, it may be, but a body of mistaken men. And what I want
to point out to you is that Mr. Roosevelt subscribes to the judgment of these mistaken men as to the influences which should
govern America. That is the serious part of it. Mr. Roosevelt's judgment has been captured. Mr. Roosevelt's idea of the way
in which the industries of this country ought to be controlled has been captured. He does not propose to set us free. He proposes
to use monopoly in order to make us happy. And the project is one of those projects which all history cries out against as
impossible.

The Democratic platform is the only platform which says that private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable, and any man
who does not subscribe to that opinion does not know the way to set the people of the United States free, and to serve humanity.
All that Mr. Roosevelt is asking you to do is to elect him president of the board of trustees. I do not care how wise, how
patriotic the trustees may be; I have never heard of any group of men in whose hands I am willing to put the liberties of
America in trust. And, therefore, I am not in this campaign engaged in doubting any man's motives. I merely want to point
out that these gentlemen are not proposing the methods of liberty but are proposing the methods of control. A control among
a free people is intolerable.

I have been very much interested the last day or two in having described to me the industries of some of these smaller Western
cities. I known in Indiana, for example, town after town was pointed out to me that still has the American characteristic,
in which there are factories upon factories owned by men who live in the place -- independent enterprises still unabsorbed
by the great economic combinations which have become so threateningly inhuman in our economic organization -- and it seems
to me that these are outposts and symbols of the older and freer America. And after I had traveled through that series of
towns and met the sturdy people that live in them, I entered in the city of Gary, which is a little way outside of Chicago,
and realized that I had come from the older America into the newer America. But this was a town owned and built by a single
monopolistic corporation. And I wondered which kind of America the people of America, if they could see this picture as I
saw it, would choose?

Which do you want? Do you want to live in a town patronized by some great combination of capitalists who pick it out as a
suitable place to plant their industry and draw you into their employment? Or do you want to see your sons and your brothers
and your husbands build up business for themselves under the protection of laws which make it impossible for any giant, however
big, to crush them and put them out of business, so that they can match their wits here in the midst of a free country with
any captain of industry or merchant of finance to be found anywhere in the world, and put every man who now assumes to control
and promote monopoly upon his mettle to beat them at initiative, at economy, at the organization of business, and the cheap
production of salable goods? Which do you want?

Why, gentlemen, America is never going to submit to monopoly. America is never going to choose thralldom instead of freedom.
Look what there is to decide! There is the tariff question. Can the tariff question be decided in favor of the people of the
United States so long as the monopolies are the chief counselors at Washington? There is the great currency question. You
know how difficult it is to move your crops every year. And I tremble, I must frankly tell you, to think of the bumper crops
that are now coming from our fields, because they are going to need enormous bodies of cash to move them.

You have got to get that cash by calling in your loans and embarrassing people in every center of commercial activity, because
there isn't cash enough under our inelastic currency to lend itself to this instrumentality. And are we going to settle the
currency question so long as the government of the United States listens only to the counsel of those who command the banking
situation in the United States? You can't solve the tariff, you can't solve the currency question under the domination which
is proposed by one branch of the Republican Party and tolerated by the other.

Then there is the great question of conservation. What is our fear about conservation? The hands that will be stretched out
to monopolize our forests, to preempt the use of our great power-producing streams, the hands that will be stretched into
the bowels of the earth to take possession of the great riches that lie hidden in Alaska and elsewhere in the incomparable
domain of the United States are the hands of monopoly. And is this thing merely to be regulated? Is this thing to be legalized?
Are these men to continue to stand at the elbow of government and tell us how we are to save ourselves from the very things
that we fear? You can't settle the question of conservation while monopoly exists if monopoly is close to the ears of those
who govern. And the question of conservation is a great deal bigger than the question of saving our forests and our mineral
resources and our waters. It is as big as the life and happiness and strength and elasticity and hope of our people.

The government of the United States has now to look out upon her people and see what they need, what should be done for them.
Why, gentlemen, there are tasks waiting the government of the United States which it cannot perform until every pulse of that
government beats in unison with the needs and the desires of the whole body of the American people. Shall we not give the
people access of sympathy, access of counsel, access of authority to the instrumentalities which are to be indispensable to
their lives?

When I think of the great things to be accomplished and then think of the danger that there is that the people of the United
States will not choose free instruments to accomplish them, then I tremble to think of the verdict that may be rendered on
the 5th of November. But when you look around when going through America, as I have recently been going through it, your heart
rises again. Why, two years ago when I was running for governor in New Jersey, I used to come away from public meetings with
a certain burden on my heart, because I knew I was not mistaken in feeling that I had seen in the faces and felt in the atmosphere
of the great meetings that I addressed a certain sense of foreboding and anxiety as a people who were anxious about their
future.

But I haven't seen anything of that kind in the year 1912. The people of the United States now know what they intend to do.
They intend to take charge of their own affairs again and they see the way to do it. Great outpourings like this are not in
compliment to an individual; they are in demonstration of a purpose. And all I have to say for the Democratic candidate for
the presidency is that I pray God he may be shown the way not to disappoint the expectations of such people.

Only you can show him the way. You can't do it by proxy. You must determine the interests of your own life and then find spokesmen
for those interests who will speak them as fairly as men have learned how to speak in Nebraska. The great emancipation which
has been wrought for you by the fight for progressive democracy which has gone on from splendid stage to splendid stage in
this state is that it has raised up for you men who fearlessly speak the truth. And that is not true of all parts of the country.

Why, there are parts of the country where I am considered brave if I speak in words what every man and woman in the audience
knows to be true. Now, I have never known what it was to exercise courage when I knew that the stars in all their courses
were fighting my way. Do you suppose a man needs be courageous to speak the truth, to attach his puny force to the great voice
of the country which is truth itself? A man would be a coward that wouldn't speak the truth. A man would be a fool who didn't
see that the only puissance in human affairs was the irresistible force of truth itself, and men are weak in proportion as
they are mistaken; they are weak in proportion as their judgments are misled; they are weak in proportion as they do not see
the practical terms into which the truth can be translated. But they are not courageous when they merely tell the truth, because,
if they lie because they were afraid, do you suppose they would have very comfortable moments when they withdraw into the
privacy of their own family?

I wonder how some men sleep of nights because they deceive themselves and deceive others all day long, and then actually go
home and go to sleep. I don't know what their dreams can be. And they speak the things that they know are not true because
they are afraid of something.

Fear is abroad in free America. There are men who dare not undertake certain business enterprises because they know that they
would be crushed. There are men who dare not speak certain opinions because they know that they would be boycotted in influential
circles upon which their credit and their advancement in their business depends.

Do you suppose that it is singular that men should rise up and fight through half a generation as your own champions have
fought in order to dispel that fear? The only way to dispel fear is to bring the things that you are afraid of out in the
open and challenge them there to meet the great moral force of the people of the United States. So that if these gentlemen
will come out and avow their purposes, they will destroy all possibility of realizing those purposes.

One of the fine things of our time is that the whole game is disclosed. We now know the processes of monopoly, and we therefore
know the processes of law by which monopoly can be destroyed. They have shown their hands and we know how to stay their use
of illegitimate power.

Will we do them any damage? I tell you frankly that if I thought that any considerable portion of the enterprising men of
America would be injured by the policies that I am interested in, I would hesitate. But I am clear in the conviction that
to set the people of the United States free is to set the big enterprises free along with the little ones, because I have
never heard of any business conditions which were dependent upon the subservience of great business, of enterprising businessmen.
If you have to be subservient, you aren't even making the rich fellows as rich as they might be, because you are not adding
your originative force to the extraordinary production of wealth in America.

America is as rich, not as Wall Street, not as the financial centers in Chicago and St. Louis and San Francisco; it is as
rich as the people that make its centers rich. And if those people hesitate in their enterprise, cowering in the face of power,
hesitate to originate designs of their own, then the very fountains which make these places abound in wealth are dried up
at the source; so that by setting the little men of America free you are not damaging the giants. You are merely making them
behave like human beings.

Now, a giant ought to have more human nature in him than a Pygmy, and we want to reread the Decalogue to these big men who
may not have heard it in some time. And by moralizing, we are going to set them free and their business free.

It may be that certain things will happen, for monopoly in this country is carrying a body of water such as no body of men
ought to be asked to carry. And when by regulated competition -- that is to say, fair competition, competition that fights
fair -- they are put upon their mettle, they will have to economize in their processes of business, and they can't economize
unless they drop that water. I do not know how to squeeze the water out but they will get rid of it, if you will put them
on their mettle. They will have to get rid of it, or those of us who don't carry tanks will outrun them in the race. Put all
the business of America upon the footing of economy and efficiency, and then let the race be to the strongest and the efficient.

So that our program is a program of prosperity, only it is a program of prosperity that is a little more pervasive to the
present program, and pervasive prosperity is more fruitful than that which is narrow and restrictive.

I congratulate the monopolists of the United States that they are not going to have their way, because, quite contrary to
the old theory, the people of the United States are wiser than they are. The people of the United States understand the United
States as these gentlemen do not, and if they will only give us leave, we will not only make them rich but we will make them
happy, because then our consciences will have less to carry. They are waking up to this fact, ladies and gentlemen. The businessmen
of this country are not deluded, and not all of the big business of this country are deluded.

Some men who have been led into wrong practice, who have been led into the practice of monopoly because that seemed to be
the drift and inevitable method of supremacy of their times, are just as ready as we are to turn about and adopt the processes
of freedom, because American hearts beat in a lot of those men just as they beat under our jackets. They will be as glad to
be free as we have been to set them free. And then the splendid force which has led to the things that hurt us will lead to
the things than benefit us.

We are coming to a common understanding, and only a common understanding is the tolerable basis of a free government. I congratulate
you, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, that you are now coming to that point of fruition of which you have dreamed and for
which you have planned in Nebraska for more than half a generation. . . .

What we propose, therefore, in this program of freedom, is a program of general advantage. Almost every monopoly that has
resisted extinction has resisted the real interests of its own stockholders. And it has been very, very slow business convincing
those who were responsible for the business of the country that that was the fact. After the 4th of March next, therefore,
we are going to get together; we are going to stop serving special interests, and we are going to stop setting one interest
up against another interest. We are not going to champion one set of people against another set of people, but we are going
to see what common counsel can accomplish for the happiness and redemption of America.

The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 marked several important changes in American political life. Traditionally, the President
had been a member of a previous President's Cabinet, and what is more a man who had made a career of national affairs; but
Jackson, although he enjoyed national support, had never held a prominent governmental position. His predecessors had come
from aristocratic families and had been inclined to scorn or at least distrust the common people; but Jackson brought with
him the frontier faith that most men could do most things with reasonable competence. "In a country where offices are created
solely for the benefit of the people," he could declare, "no one man has any more intrinsic right to official station than
another." And he probably summed up his political philosophy when he asserted: "Never for a moment believe that the great
body of citizens of any state can deliberately intend to do wrong." If the Jacksonian Democrats did not always agree about
what was right, they at least were consistent in their opposition to certain tendencies that they considered to be wrong:
for example, entrenched power in public office, traditional economic privilege, and limited voting rights. In his first annual
message to Congress, December 8, 1829, Jackson outlined the policies that were to characterize his administration and earn
it the name of "the age of the common man."

I consider it one of the most urgent of my duties to bring to your attention the propriety of amending that part of our Constitution
which relates to the election of President and Vice-President. Our system of government was by its framers deemed an experiment,
and they, therefore, consistently provided a mode of remedying its defects.

To the people belongs the right of electing their chief magistrate; it was never designed that their choice should in any
case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or by the agency confided, under certain contingencies,
to the House of Representatives. Experience proves that in proportion as agents to execute the will of the people are multiplied
there is danger of their wishes being frustrated. Some may be unfaithful; all are liable to err. So far, therefore, as the
people can with convenience speak, it is safer for them to express their own will.

The number of aspirants to the presidency and the diversity of the interests which may influence their claims leave little
reason to expect a choice in the first instance, and in that event the election must devolve on the House of Representatives,
where it is obvious the will of the people may not be always ascertained or, if ascertained, may not be regarded. From the
mode of voting by states the choice is to be made by twenty-four votes, and it may often occur that one of these will be controlled
by an individual representative. Honors and offices are at the disposal of the successful candidate. Repeated ballotings may
make it apparent that a single individual holds the cast in his hand. May he not be tempted to name his reward?

But even without corruption, supposing the probity of the representative to be proof against the powerful motives by which
it may be assailed, the will of the people is still constantly liable to be misrepresented. One may err from ignorance of
the wishes of his constituents; another from a conviction that it is his duty to be governed by his own judgment of the fitness
of the candidates; finally, although all were inflexibly honest, all accurately informed of the wishes of their constituents,
yet under the present mode of election a minority may often elect a President, and when this happens it may reasonably be
expected that efforts will be made on the part of the majority to rectify this injurious operation of their institutions.
But although no evil of this character should result from such a perversion of the first principle of our system--that the majority is to govern--it must be very certain that a President elected by a minority cannot enjoy the confidence necessary to the successful discharge
of his duties.

In this, as in all other matters of public concern, policy requires that as few impediments as possible should exist to the
free operation of the public will. Let us, then, endeavor so to amend our system that the office of chief magistrate may not
be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.

I would therefore recommend such an amendment of the Constitution as may remove all intermediate agency in the election of
the President and Vice-President. The mode may be so regulated as to preserve to each state its present relative weight in
the election, and a failure in the first attempt may be provided for by confining the second to a choice between the two highest
candidates. In connection with such an amendment it would seem advisable to limit the service of the chief magistrate to a
single term of either four or six years. If, however, it should not be adopted, it is worthy of consideration whether a provision
disqualifying for office the representatives in Congress on whom such an election may have devolved would not be proper.

While members of Congress can be constitutionally appointed to offices of trust and profit, it will be the practice, even
under the most conscientious adherence to duty, to select them for such stations as they are believed to be better qualified
to fill than other citizens; but the purity of our government would doubtless be promoted by their exclusion from all appointments
in the gift of the President, in whose election they may have been officially concerned. The nature of the judicial office
and the necessity of securing in the cabinet and in diplomatic stations of the highest rank the best talents and political
experience should, perhaps, except these from the exclusion.

There are, perhaps, few men who can for any great length of time enjoy office and power without being more or less under the
influence of feelings unfavorable to the faithful discharge of their public duties. Their integrity may be proof against improper
considerations immediately addressed to themselves, but they are apt to acquire a habit of looking with indifference upon
the public interests and of tolerating conduct from which an unpracticed man would revolt. Office is considered as a species
of property, and government rather as a means of promoting individual interests than as an instrument created solely for the
service of the people. Corruption in some and in others a perversion of correct feelings and principles divert government
from its legitimate ends and make it an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many. The duties of all public
officers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves
for their performance; and I cannot but believe that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally
to be gained by their experience. I submit, therefore, to your consideration whether the efficiency of the government would
not be promoted and official industry and integrity better secured by a general extension of the law which limits appointments
to four years.

In a country where offices are created solely for the benefit of the people, no one man has any more intrinsic right to official
station than another. Offices were not established to give support to particular men at the public expense. No individual
wrong is, therefore, done by removal, since neither appointment to nor continuance in office is matter of right. The incumbent
became an officer with a view to public benefits, and when these require his removal they are not to be sacrificed to private
interests. It is the people, and they alone, who have a right to complain when a bad officer is substituted for a good one.
He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are enjoyed by the millions who never held office. The proposed
limitation would destroy the idea of property now so generally connected with official station, and although individual distress
may be sometimes produced, it would, by promoting that rotation which constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed,
give healthful action to the system.

No very considerable change has occurred during the recess of Congress in the condition of either our agriculture, commerce,
or manufactures. The operation of the tariff has not proved so injurious to the two former or as beneficial to the latter
as was anticipated. Importations of foreign goods have not been sensibly diminished, while domestic competition, under an
illusive excitement, has increased the production much beyond the demand for home consumption. The consequences have been
low prices, temporary embarrassment, and partial loss. That such of our manufacturing establishments as are based upon capital
and are prudently managed will survive the shock and be ultimately profitable there is no good reason to doubt.

To regulate its conduct so as to promote equally the prosperity of these three cardinal interests is one of the most difficult
tasks of government; and it may be regretted that the complicated restrictions which now embarrass the intercourse of nations
could not by common consent be abolished, and commerce allowed to flow in those channels to which individual enterprise, always
its surest guide, might direct it. But we must ever expect selfish legislation in other nations and are therefore compelled
to adapt our own to their regulations in the manner best calculated to avoid serious injury and to harmonize the conflicting
interests of our agriculture, our commerce, and our manufactures. Under these impressions, I invite your attention to the
existing tariff, believing that some of its provisions require modification.

The general rule to be applied in graduating the duties upon articles of foreign growth or manufacture is that which will
place our own in fair competition with those of other countries; and the inducements to advance even a step beyond this point
are controlling in regard to those articles which are of primary necessity in time of war. When we reflect upon the difficulty
and delicacy of this operation, it is important that it should never be attempted but with the utmost caution. Frequent legislation
in regard to any branch of industry, affecting its value and by which its capital may be transferred to new channels, must
always be productive of hazardous speculation and loss.

In deliberating, therefore, on these interesting subjects, local feelings and prejudices should be merged in the patriotic
determination to promote the great interests of the whole. All attempts to connect them with the party conflicts of the day
are necessarily injurious and should be discountenanced. Our action upon them should be under the control of higher and purer
motives. Legislation subjected to such influences can never be just and will not long retain the sanction of a people whose
active patriotism is not bounded by sectional limits nor insensible to that spirit of concession and forbearance which gave
life to our political compact and still sustains it. Discarding all calculations of political ascendency, the North, the South,
the East, and the West should unite in diminishing any burden of which either may justly complain.

The agricultural interest of our country is so essentially connected with every other and so superior in importance to them
all that it is scarcely necessary to invite to it your particular attention. It is principally as manufactures and commerce
tend to increase the value of agricultural productions and to extend their application to the wants and comforts of society
that they deserve the fostering care of government.

Looking forward to the period, not far distant, when a sinking fund will no longer be required, the duties on those articles
of importation which cannot come in competition with our own productions are the first that should engage the attention of
Congress in the modification of the tariff. Of these, tea and coffee are the most prominent. They enter largely into the consumption
of the country and have become articles of necessity to all classes. A reduction, therefore, of the existing duties will be
felt as a common benefit, but like all other legislation connected with commerce, to be efficacious and not injurious it should
be gradual and certain.

The public prosperity is evinced in the increased revenue arising from the sales of the public lands and in the steady maintenance
of that produced by imposts and tonnage, notwithstanding the additional duties imposed by the act of May 19, 1828, and the
unusual importations in the early part of that year.

The balance in the treasury on January 1, 1829, was $5,972,435.81. The receipts of the current year are estimated at $24,602,230
and the expenditures for the same time at $26,164,595, leaving a balance in the treasury on the 1st of January next of $4,410,070.81.

There will have been paid on account of the public debt during the present year the sum of $12,405,005.80, reducing the whole
debt of the government on the 1st of January next to $48,565,406.50, including $7,000,000 of 5 percent stock subscribed to
the Bank of the United States. The payment on account of public debt made on the 1st of July last was $8,715,462.87. It was
apprehended that the sudden withdrawal of so large a sum from the banks in which it was deposited, at a time of unusual pressure
in the money market, might cause much injury to the interests dependent on bank accommodations. But this evil was wholly averted
by an early anticipation of it at the treasury, aided by the judicious arrangements of the officers of the Bank of the United
States.

This state of the finances exhibits the resources of the nation in an aspect highly flattering to its industry and auspicious
of the ability of government, in a very short time, to extinguish the public debt. When this shall be done, our population
will be relieved from a considerable portion of its present burdens and will find not only new motives to patriotic affection
but additional means for the display of individual enterprise. The fiscal power of the states will also be increased and may
be more extensively exerted in favor of education and other public objects, while ample means will remain in the federal government
to promote the general weal in all the modes permitted to its authority.

After the extinction of the public debt it is not probable that any adjustment of the tariff upon principles satisfactory
to the people of the Union will, until a remote period, if ever, leave the government without a considerable surplus in the
treasury beyond what may be required for its current service. As, then, the period approaches when the application of the
revenue to the payment of debt will cease, the disposition of the surplus will present a subject for the serious deliberation
of Congress; and it may be fortunate for the country that it is yet to be decided. Considered in connection with the difficulties
which have heretofore attended appropriations for purposes of internal improvement, and with those which this experience tells
us will certainly arise whenever power over such subjects may be exercised by the general government, it is hoped that it
may lead to the adoption of some plan which will reconcile the diversified interests of the states and strengthen the bonds
which unite them.

Every member of the Union, in peace and in war, will be benefited by the improvement of inland navigation and the construction
of highways in the several states. Let us, then, endeavor to attain this benefit in a mode which will be satisfactory to all.
That hitherto adopted has by many of our fellow citizens been deprecated as an infraction of the Constitution, while by others
it has been viewed as inexpedient. All feel that it has been employed at the expense of harmony in the legislative councils.

To avoid these evils it appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made of the surplus
revenue would be its apportionment among the several states according to their ratio of representation; and should this measure
not be found warranted by the Constitution that it would be expedient to propose to the states an amendment authorizing it.
I regard an appeal to the source of power in cases of real doubt, and where its exercise is deemed indispensable to the general
welfare, as among the most sacred of all our obligations.

Upon this country more than any other has, in the providence of God, been cast the special guardianship of the great principle
of adherence to written constitutions. If it fail here, all hope in regard to it will be extinguished. That this was intended
to be a government of limited and specific, and not general, powers must be admitted by all, and it is our duty to preserve
for it the character intended by its framers. If experience points out the necessity for an enlargement of these powers, let
us apply for it to those for whose benefit it is to be exercised, and not undermine the whole system by a resort to overstrained
constructions. The scheme has worked well. It has exceeded the hopes of those who devised it and become an object of admiration
to the world. We are responsible to our country and to the glorious cause of self-government for the preservation of so great
a good. The great mass of legislation relating to our internal affairs was intended to be left where the Federal Convention
found it--in the state governments. Nothing is clearer, in my view, than that we are chiefly indebted for the success of the
Constitution under which we are now acting to the watchful and auxiliary operation of the state authorities. This is not the
reflection of a day but belongs to the most deeply rooted convictions of my mind. I cannot, therefore, too strongly or too
earnestly, for my own sense of its importance, warn you against all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of state sovereignty.
Sustained by its healthful and invigorating influence the federal system can never fall. . . .

The condition and ulterior destiny of the Indian tribes within the limits of some of our states have become objects of much
interest and importance. It has long been the policy of government to introduce among them the arts of civilization, in the
hope of gradually reclaiming them from a wandering life. This policy has, however, been coupled with another wholly incompatible
with its success. Professing a desire to civilize and settle them, we have at the same time lost no opportunity to purchase
their lands and thrust them farther into the wilderness. By this means they have not only been kept in a wandering state but
been led to look upon us as unjust and indifferent to their fate. Thus, though lavish in its expenditures upon the subject,
government has constantly defeated its own policy, and the Indians, in general, receding farther and farther to the west,
have retained their savage habits. A portion, however, of the Southern tribes, having mingled much with the whites and made
some progress in the arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an independent government within the limits of
Georgia and Alabama. These states, claiming to be the only sovereigns within their territories, extended their laws over the
Indians, which induced the latter to call upon the United States for protection.

Under these circumstances the question presented was whether the general government had a right to sustain those people in
their pretensions. The Constitution declares that "no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any
other state" without the consent of its legislature. If the general government is not permitted to tolerate the erection of
a confederate state within the territory of one of the members of this Union against her consent, much less could it allow
a foreign and independent government to establish itself there.

Georgia became a member of the Confederacy, which eventuated in our federal Union as a sovereign state, always asserting her
claim to certain limits, which, having been originally defined in her colonial charter and subsequently recognized in the
treaty of peace, she has ever since continued to enjoy, except as they have been circumscribed by her own voluntary transfer
of a portion of her territory to the United States in the articles of cession of 1802. Alabama was admitted into the Union
on the same footing with the original states, with boundaries which were prescribed by Congress. There is no constitutional,
conventional, or legal provision which allows them less power over the Indians within their borders than is possessed by Maine
or New York. Would the people of Maine permit the Penobscot tribe to erect an independent government within their state? And
unless they did would it not be the duty of the general government to support them in resisting such a measure? Would the
people of New York permit each remnant of the Six Nations within her borders to declare itself an independent people under
the protection of the United States? Could the Indians establish a separate republic on each of their reservations in Ohio?
And if they were so disposed would it be the duty of this government to protect them in the attempt?

If the principle involved in the obvious answer to these questions be abandoned, it will follow that the objects of this government
are reversed, and that it has become a part of its duty to aid in destroying the states which it was established to protect.
Actuated by this view of the subject, I informed the Indians inhabiting parts of Georgia and Alabama that their attempt to
establish an independent government would not be countenanced by the executive of the United States, and advised them to emigrate
beyond the Mississippi or submit to the laws of those states.

Our conduct toward these people is deeply interesting to our national character. Their present condition, contrasted with
what they once were, makes a most powerful appeal to our sympathies. Our ancestors found them the uncontrolled possessors
of these vast regions. By persuasion and force they have been made to retire from river to river and from mountain to mountain,
until some of the tribes have become extinct and others have left but remnants to preserve for awhile their once terrible
names. Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage doom him
to weakness and decay, the fate of the Mohegan, the Narragansett, and the Delaware is fast overtaking the Choctaw, the Cherokee,
and the Creek. That this fate surely awaits them if they remain within the limits of the states does not admit of a doubt.
Humanity and national honor demand that every effort should be made to avert so great a calamity. It is too late to inquire
whether it was just in the United States to include them and their territory within the bounds of new states, whose limits
they could control. That step cannot be retraced. A state cannot be dismembered by Congress or restricted in the exercise
of her constitutional power. But the people of those states and of every state, actuated by feelings of justice and a regard
for our national honor, submit to you the interesting question whether something cannot be done, consistently with the rights
of the states, to preserve this much injured race.

As a means of effecting this end, I suggest for your consideration the propriety of setting apart an ample district west of
the Mississippi, and without the limits of any state or territory now formed, to be guaranteed to the Indian tribes, as long
as they shall occupy it, each tribe having a distinct control over the portion designated for its use. There they may be secured
in the enjoyment of governments of their own choice, subject to no other control from the United States than such as may be
necessary to preserve peace on the frontier and between the several tribes. There the benevolent may endeavor to teach them
the arts of civilization and, by promoting union and harmony among them, to raise up an interesting commonwealth, destined
to perpetuate the race and to attest the humanity and justice of this government.

This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel, as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of
their fathers and seek a home in a distant land. But they should be distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits
of the states they must be subject to their laws. In return for their obedience as individuals, they will without doubt be
protected in the enjoyment of those possessions which they have improved by their industry. But it seems to me visionary to
suppose that in this state of things claims can be allowed on tracts of country on which they have neither dwelt nor made
improvements, merely because they have seen them from the mountain or passed them in the chase. Submitting to the laws of
the states and receiving, like other citizens, protection in their persons and property, they will ere long become merged
in the mass of our population.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 2, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 442-462.

On each national day of inauguration since 1789, the people have renewed their sense of dedication to the United States.

In Washington's day the task of the people was to create and weld together a nation.

In Lincoln's day the task of the people was to preserve that Nation from disruption from within.

In this day the task of the people is to save that Nation and its institutions from disruption from without.

To us there has come a time, in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock-to recall what our place
in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. If we do not, we risk the real peril of inaction.

Lives of nations are determined not by the count of years, but by the lifetime of the human spirit. The life of a man is three-score
years and ten: a little more, a little less. The life of a nation is the fullness of the measure of its will to live.

There are men who doubt this. There are men who believe that democracy, as a form of Government and a frame of life, is limited or measured by a kind of mystical and artificial fate that, for
some unexplained reason, tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future-and that freedom is an ebbing tide.

But we Americans know that this is not true.

Eight years ago, when the life of this Republic seemed frozen by a fatalistic terror, we proved that this is not true. We
were in the midst of shock-but we acted. We acted quickly, boldly, decisively.

These later years have been living years-fruitful years for the people of this democracy. For they have brought to us greater
security and, I hope, a better understanding that life's ideals are to be measured in other than material things.

Most vital to our present and our future is this experience of a democracy which successfully survived crisis at home; put
away many evil things; built new structures on enduring lines; and, through it all, maintained the fact of its democracy.

For action has been taken within the three-way framework of the Constitution of the United States. The coordinate branches
of the Government continue freely to function. The Bill of Rights remains inviolate. The freedom of elections is wholly maintained.
Prophets of the downfall of American democracy have seen their dire predictions come to naught.

Democracy is not dying.

We know it because we have seen it revive-and grow.

We know it cannot die-because it is built on the unhampered initiative of individual men and women joined together in a common
enterprise-an enterprise undertaken and carried through by the free expression of a free majority.

We know it because democracy alone, of all forms of government, enlists the full force of men's enlightened will.

We know it because democracy alone has constructed an unlimited civilization capable of infinite progress in the improvement
of human life.

We know it because, if we look below the surface, we sense it still spreading on every continent-for it is the most humane,
the most advanced, and in the end the most unconquerable of all forms of human society.

A nation, like a person, has a body-a body that must be fed and clothed and housed, invigorated and rested, in a manner that
measures up to the objectives of our time.

A nation, like a person, has a mind-a mind that must be kept informed and alert, that must know itself, that understands the
hopes and the needs of its neighbors-all the other nations that live within the narrowing circle of the world.

And a nation, like a person, has something deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all its parts.
It is that something which matters most to its future-which calls forth the most sacred guarding of its present.

It is a thing for which we find it difficult-even impossible-to hit upon a single, simple word.

And yet we all understand what it is-the spirit-the faith of America. It is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes
of those who came from many lands-some of high degree, but mostly plain people, who sought here, early and late, to find freedom
more freely.

The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of
early peoples. It blazed anew in the middle ages. It was written in Magna Charta.

In the Americas its impact has been irresistible. America has been the New World in all tongues, to all peoples, not because
this continent was a new-found land, but because all those who came here believed they could create upon this continent a
new life-a life that should be new in freedom.

Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower Compact, into the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the
United States, into the Gettysburg Address.

Those who first came here to carry out the longings of their spirit, and the millions who followed, and the stock that sprang
from them-all have moved forward constantly and consistently toward an ideal which in itself has gained stature and clarity
with each generation.

The hopes of the Republic cannot forever tolerate either undeserved poverty or self-serving wealth.

We know that we still have far to go; that we must more greatly build the security and the opportunity and the knowledge of
every citizen, in the measure justified by the resources and the capacity of the land.

But it is not enough to achieve these purposes alone. It is not enough to clothe and feed the body of this Nation, and instruct
and inform its mind. For there is also the spirit. And of the three, the greatest is the spirit.

Without the body and the mind, as all men know, the Nation could not live.

But if the spirit of America were killed, even though the Nation's body and mind, constricted in an alien world, lived on,
the America we know would have perished.

That spirit-that faith-speaks to us in our daily lives in ways often unnoticed, because they seem so obvious. It speaks to
us here in the Capital of the Nation. It speaks to us through the processes of governing in the sovereignties of 48 States.
It speaks to us in our counties, in our cities, in our towns, and in our villages. It speaks to us from the other nations
of the hemisphere, and from those across the seas-the enslaved, as well as the free. Sometimes we fail to hear or heed these
voices of freedom because to us the privilege of our freedom is such an old, old story.

The destiny of America was proclaimed in words of prophecy spoken by our first President in his first inaugural in 1789-words
almost directed, it would seem, to this year of 1941: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the
republican model of government are justly considered . . . deeply, . . . finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the
hands of the American people."

If we lose that sacred fire-if we let it be smothered with doubt and fear-then we shall reject the destiny which Washington
strove so valiantly and so triumphantly to establish. The preservation of the spirit and faith of the Nation does, and will,
furnish the highest justification for every sacrifice that we may make in the cause of national defense.

In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of
democracy.

For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.

We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will
of God.

Three decades of strained relations with the Latin-American countries were reversed during the Hoover administration, largely
through the work of Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson. President Roosevelt, who later named Stimson his secretary of war,
resolved to continue the policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of Latin America and seeking alliances there. In
an address at Chautauqua, New York, on August 14, 1936, part of which is reprinted here, the President explained his "Good
Neighbor Policy."

Long before I returned to Washington as President of the United States, I had made up my mind that, pending what might be
called a more opportune moment on other continents, the United States could best serve the cause of a peaceful humanity by
setting an example. That was why on the 4th of March, 1933, I made the following declaration:

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely
respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others--the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects
the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

This declaration represents my purpose; but it represents more than a purpose, for it stands for a practice. To a measurable
degree it has succeeded; the whole world now knows that the United States cherishes no predatory ambitions. We are strong;
but less powerful nations know that they need not fear our strength. We seek no conquest: we stand for peace.

In the whole of the Western Hemisphere our good-neighbor policy has produced results that are especially heartening.

The noblest monument to peace and to neighborly economic and social friendship in all the world is not a monument in bronze
or stone, but the boundary which unites the United States and Canada--3,000 miles of friendship with no barbed wire, no gun
or soldier, and no passport on the whole frontier. Mutual trust made that frontier. To extend the same sort of mutual trust
throughout the Americas was our aim.

The American republics to the south of us have been ready always to cooperate with the United States on a basis of equality
and mutual respect, but before we inaugurated the good-neighbor policy there was among them resentment and fear because certain
administrations in Washington had slighted their national pride and their sovereign rights.

In pursuance of the good-neighbor policy, and because in my younger days I had learned many lessons in the hard school of
experience, I stated that the United States was opposed definitely to armed intervention.

We have negotiated a Pan American convention embodying the principle of nonintervention. We have abandoned the Platt Amendment,
which gave us the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the Republic of Cuba. We have withdrawn American Marines from
Haiti. We have signed a new treaty which places our relations with Panama on a mutually satisfactory basis. We have undertaken
a series of trade agreements with other American countries to our mutual commercial profit. At the request of two neighboring
republics, I hope to give assistance in the final settlement of the last serious boundary dispute between any of the American
nations.

Throughout the Americas the spirit of the good neighbor is a practical and living fact. The twenty-one American republics
are not only living together in friendship and in peace--they are united in the determination so to remain.

To give substance to this determination a conference will meet on Dec. 1, 1936, at the capital of our great southern neighbor
Argentina, and it is, I know, the hope of all chiefs of state of the Americas that this will result in measures which will
banish wars forever from this vast portion of the earth.

Peace, like charity, begins at home; that is why we have begun at home. But peace in the Western world is not all that we
seek.

It is our hope that knowledge of the practical application of the good-neighbor policy in this hemisphere will be borne home
to our neighbors across the seas.

On January 20, 2009, a frigid morning in Washington, D.C., and across much of the country, an African American man, Barack Obama, became the 44th president of the United States. He was only the second man to swear his oath of office on the Bible used
by Abraham Lincoln for that purpose. The Washington Post estimated that 1.8 million people filled the National Mall to witness (the vast majority by means of strategically placed
large-screen televisions) this emotion-filled event, and countless others filled living rooms and other meeting places throughout
the country and, indeed, the world. The event's general air of celebration was tempered with sober evaluation of the nation's
enormous hurdles and hard work ahead.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne
by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as [for] the generosity and cooperation he
has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and
the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments,
America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained
faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence
and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective
failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered.
Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy
strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence
across our land—a nagging fear that America"s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or
in a short span of time. But know this, America—they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas,
that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come
to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed
on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue
their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey
has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted—for those who prefer leisure
over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things—some
celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity
and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better
life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth
or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive
than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week
or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests
and putting off unpleasant decisions—that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves
off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act—not
only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and
digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology"s
wonders to raise health care"s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our
cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions—who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.
Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve
when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them—that the stale political arguments that have
consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small,
but whether it works—whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage
the public"s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because
only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom
is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation
cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size
of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart—not
out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with
perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the
blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience"s sake. And so to all
the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father
was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity,
and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the [sic] sturdy
alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as
we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our
cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater
effort—even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people,
and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear
threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its
defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that
our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and
Hindus—and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have
tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot
help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows
smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe
who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society"s ills on the West—know that your people will judge you on what you can build,
not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you
are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish
starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford
indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world"s resources without regard to effect. For
the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very
hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington
whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit
of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment—a moment that will
define a generation—it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which
this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would
rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter"s courage
to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent"s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends—honesty
and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism—these things are old. These things are
true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.
What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties
to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge
that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence—the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in
celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served
in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America"s birth, in the
coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned.
The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt,
the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the
city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it).”

America: in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope
and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children"s children
that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed
on the horizon and God"s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

In the years following the Revolution, many Americans were willing to assert cultural as well as political independence from
the Old World. Their notion was that since America was separated by 3,000 miles from Europe and had her own destiny, she should
develop indigenous institutions in accordance with her own ideals. Higher education for an American, Jefferson felt, ought to take place in his own country, not in some foreign land whose influence might weaken
his native ties. In a letter to John Banister of October 15, 1785, Jefferson made plain what to him were the differences between
educating Americans at home and abroad.

I should sooner have answered the paragraph in your letter of September 19, respecting the best seminary for the eduction
of youth in Europe, but that it was necessary for me to make inquiries on the subject. The result of these has been to consider
the competition as resting between Geneva and Rome.

They are equally cheap and probably are equal in the course of education pursued. The advantage of Geneva is that students
acquire there the habit of speaking French. The advantages of Rome are the acquiring a local knowledge of a spot so classical
and so celebrated; the acquiring the true pronunciation of the Latin language; a just taste in the fine arts, more particularly
those of painting, sculpture, architecture, and music; a familiarity with those objects and processes of agriculture, which
experience has shown best adapted to a climate like ours; and lastly, the advantage of a fine climate for health. It is probable,
too, that by being boarded in a French family, the habit of speaking that language may be obtained.

I do not count on any advantage to be derived in Geneva, from a familiar acquaintance with the principles of that government.
The late revolution has rendered it a tyrannical aristocracy, more likely to give ill than good ideas to an American. I think
the balance in favor of Rome. Pisa is sometimes spoken of as a place of education. But it does not offer the first and third
of the advantages of Rome.

But why send an American youth to Europe for education? What are the objects of a useful American education? Classical knowledge;
modern languages, chiefly French, Spanish, and Italian; mathematics; natural philosophy; natural history; civil history; and
ethics. In natural philosophy, I mean to include chemistry and agriculture, and in natural history, to include botany, as
well as the other branches of those departments. It is true that the habit of speaking the modern languages cannot be so well
acquired in America; but every other article can be as well acquired at William and Mary College as at any place in Europe.
When college education is done with and a young man is to prepare himself for public life, he must cast his eyes (for America)
either on law or physic [medicine]. For the former, where can he apply so advantageously as to Mr. Wythe? For the latter,
he must come to Europe. The medical class of students, therefore, is the only one which need come to Europe.

Let us view the disadvantages of sending a youth to Europe. To enumerate them all would require a volume. I will select a
few. If he goes to England, he learns drinking, horse racing, and boxing. These are the peculiarities of English education.
The following circumstances are common to education in that and the other countries of Europe. He acquires a fondness for
European luxury and dissipation, and a contempt for the simplicity of his own country; he is fascinated with the privileges
of the European aristocrats, and sees with abhorrence the lovely equality which the poor enjoy with the rich in his own country;
he contracts a partiality for aristocracy or monarchy; he forms foreign friendships which will never be useful to him, and
loses the seasons of life for forming in his own country those friendships which, of all others, are the most faithful and
permanent. He is led by the strongest of all the human passions into a spirit for female intrigue, destructive of his own
and others' happiness, or a passion for whores, destructive of his health; and, in both cases, learns to consider fidelity
to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice and inconsistent with happiness. He recollects the voluptuary dress and arts
of the European women, and pities and despises the chaste affections and simplicity of those of his own country; he retains
through life a fond recollection and a hankering after those places which were the scenes of his first pleasures and of his
first connections.

He returns to his own country a foreigner, unacquainted with the practices of domestic economy necessary to preserve him from
ruin, speaking and writing his native tongue as a foreigner, and therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions which
eloquence of the pen and tongue insures in a free country; for I would observe to you that what is called style in writing
or speaking is formed very early in life, while the imagination is warm and impressions are permanent. I am of opinion that
there never was an instance of a man's writing or speaking his native tongue with elegance who passed from fifteen to twenty
years of age out of the country where it was spoken. Thus, no instance exists of a person's writing two languages perfectly.
That will always appear to be his native language which was most familiar to him in his youth.

It appears to me, then, that an American coming to Europe for education loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health,
in his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this head before I came to Europe; what I see and hear
since I came here proves more than I had even suspected. Cast your eye over America. Who are the men of most learning, of
most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated
among them, and whose manners, morals, and habits are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.

Did you expect by so short a question to draw such a sermon on yourself? I dare say you did not. But the consequences of foreign
education are alarming to me as an American. I sin, therefore, through zeal, whenever I enter on the subject. You are sufficiently
American to pardon me for it.

Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion
of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased
to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those
anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising
nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged
in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye-when
I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed
to the issue, and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the
undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high
authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all
difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated
with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which
we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world.

During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn
an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being
now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange
themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred
principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that
the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens,
unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and
even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance
under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic,
as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during
the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that
the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by
some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference
of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed
as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed,
that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would
the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm
on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve
itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every
man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own
personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted
with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative
government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded
to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth
and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions
of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and
their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them
inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence,
which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter-with
all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens-a
wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is
the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper
you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape
its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not
all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce,
and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their
rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies;
the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and
safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people-a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped
by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority,
the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the
supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the
honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as
its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion;
freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution
and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the
creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust;
and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road
which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen
the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man
to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence
you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place
in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only
as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment.
When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your
indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn
what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the
past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate
that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.

Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever
you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies
of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

The McKinley Tariff of 1890 was the highest in the nation's history. Yet, eleven years later, while serving his second term
as President, McKinley revised his views, and the last speech he made before his assassination was on tariff reform. His attitude
reflected a significant shift in the thinking of businessmen during the last decade of the nineteenth century. By 1900 high
protective tariffs were no longer the watchword of every Republican politician. McKinley's speech, part of which appears here,
was delivered in Buffalo, New York, on September 5, 1901, the day before he was shot.

Trade statistics indicate that this country is in a state of unexampled prosperity. The figures are almost appalling. They
show that we are utilizing our fields and forests and mines, and that we are furnishing profitable employment to the millions
of workingmen throughout the United States, bringing comfort and happiness to their homes and making it possible to lay by
savings for old age and disability. That all the people are participating in this great prosperity is seen in every American
community and shown by the enormous and unprecedented deposits in our savings banks. Our duty is the care and security of
these deposits, and their safe investment demands the highest integrity and the best business capacity of those in charge
of these depositories of the people's earnings.

We have a vast and intricate business, built up through years of toil and struggle, in which every part of the country has
its stake, and will not permit of either neglect or of undue selfishness. No narrow, sordid policy will subserve it. The greatest
skill and wisdom on the part of the manufacturers and producers will be required to hold and increase it. Our industrial enterprises,
which have grown to such great proportions, affect the homes and occupations of the people and the welfare of the country.

Our capacity to produce has developed so enormously and our products have so multiplied that the problem of more markets requires
our urgent and immediate attention. Only a broad and enlightened policy will keep what we have. No other policy will get more.
In these times of marvelous business energy and gain, we ought to be looking to the future, strengthening the weak places
in our industrial and commercial system, that we may be ready for any storm or strain.

By sensible trade arrangements which will not interrupt our home production, we shall extend the outlets for our increasing
surplus. A system which provides a mutual exchange of commodities is manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth
of our export trade. We must not repose in fancied security that we can forever sell everything and buy little or nothing.
If such a thing were possible, it would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. We should take from our customers
such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor.

Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established.
What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad. The excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet,
and we should sell everywhere we can and buy wherever the buying will enlarge our sales and productions, and thereby make
a greater demand for home labor.

The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are
unprofitable. A policy of goodwill and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony
with the spirit of the times; measures of retaliation are not. If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue
or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?

Then, too, we have inadequate steamship service. New lines of steamers have already been put in commission between the Pacific
Coast ports of the United States and those on the western coasts of Mexico and Central and South America. These should be
followed up with direct steamship lines between the Eastern coast of the United States and South American ports. One of the
needs of the times is to direct commercial lines from our vast fields of production to the fields of consumption that we have
but barely touched.

Next in advantage to having the thing to sell is to have the convenience to carry it to the buyer. We must encourage our Merchant
Marine. We must have more ships. They must be under the American flag, built and manned and owned by Americans. These will
not only be profitable in a commercial sense; they will be messengers of peace and amity wherever they go. We must build the
Isthmian canal, which will unite the two oceans and give a straight line of water communication with the western coasts of
Central and South America and Mexico. The construction of a Pacific cable cannot be longer postponed.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 10, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 393-397.

In 1902 Germany, Italy, and England blockaded the coast of Venezuela in an effort to collect debts that it had refused to
pay. President Roosevelt, concerned about the presence of Europeans in the vicinity of the uncompleted Panama Canal, made
a show of naval force and urged U.S. mediation. Two years later, when European powers threatened forcibly to collect debts
owed them by the Dominican Republic, the United States again intervened to make the collection. In his annual messages to
Congress in 1904 and 1905, Roosevelt formulated his "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, urging a new role for the United States
-- that of international policeman for the Western Hemisphere. In the message of 1905, which is reprinted here in part, he
spelled out in detail how the role was to be conceived.

One of the most effective instruments for peace is the Monroe Doctrine as it has been and is being gradually developed by
this nation and accepted by other nations. No other policy could have been as efficient in promoting peace in the Western
Hemisphere and in giving to each nation thereon the chance to develop along its own lines. If we had refused to apply the
doctrine to changing conditions, it would now be completely outworn, would not meet any of the needs of the present day, and,
indeed, would probably by this time have sunk into complete oblivion.

It is useful at home and is meeting with recognition abroad because we have adapted our application of it to meet the growing
and changing needs of the Hemisphere. When we announce a policy such as the Monroe Doctrine, we thereby commit ourselves to
the consequences of the policy, and those consequences from time to time alter. It is out of the question to claim a right
and yet shirk the responsibility for its exercise. Not only we but all American republics who are benefited by the existence
of the doctrine must recognize the obligations each nation is under as regards foreign peoples, no less than its duty to insist
upon its own rights.

That our rights and interests are deeply concerned in the maintenance of the doctrine is so clear as hardly to need argument.
This is especially true in view of the construction of the Panama Canal. As a mere matter of self-defense we must exercise
a close watch over the approaches to this canal; and this means that we must be thoroughly alive to our interests in the Caribbean
Sea.

There are certain essential points which must never be forgotten as regards the Monroe Doctrine. In the first place, we must
as a nation make it evident that we do not intend to treat it in any shape or way as an excuse for aggrandizement on our part
at the expense of the republics to the south. We must recognize the fact that in some South American countries there has been
much suspicion lest we should interpret the Monroe Doctrine as in some way inimical to their interests, and we must try to
convince all the other nations of this continent once and for all that no just and orderly government has anything to fear
from us.

There are certain republics to the south of us which have already reached such a point of stability, order, and prosperity
that they themselves, though as yet hardly consciously, are among the guarantors of this doctrine. These republics we now
meet, not only on a basis of entire equality but in a spirit of frank and respectful friendship, which we hope is mutual.
If all of the republics to the south of us will only grow as those to which I allude have already grown, all need for us to
be the especial champions of the doctrine will disappear, for no stable and growing American republic wishes to see some great
non-American military power acquire territory in its neighborhood. All that this country desires is that the other republics
on this continent shall be happy and prosperous; and they cannot be happy and prosperous unless they maintain order within
their boundaries and behave with a just regard for their obligations toward outsiders.

It must be understood that under no circumstances will the United States use the Monroe Doctrine as a cloak for territorial
aggression. We desire peace with all the world, but perhaps most of all with the other peoples of the American continent.
There are, of course, limits to the wrongs which any self-respecting nation can endure. It is always possible that wrong actions
toward this nation or toward citizens of this nation in some state unable to keep order among its own people, unable to secure
justice from outsiders, and unwilling to do justice to those outsiders who treat it well, may result in our having to take
action to protect our rights; but such action will not be taken with a view to territorial aggression, and it will be taken
at all only with extreme reluctance and when it has become evident that every other resource has been exhausted.

Moreover, we must make it evident that we do not intend to permit the Monroe Doctrine to be used by any nation on this continent
as a shield to protect it from the consequences of its own misdeeds against foreign nations. If a republic to the south of
us commits a tort against a foreign nation, such as an outrage against a citizen of that nation, then the Monroe Doctrine
does not force us to interfere to prevent punishment of the tort, save to see that the punishment does not assume the form
of territorial occupation in any shape.

The case is more difficult when it refers to a contractual obligation. Our own government has always refused to enforce such
contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by an appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign governments
would take the same view. But they do not; and in consequence we are liable at any time to be brought face to face with disagreeable
alternatives. On the one hand, this country would certainly decline to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting
a just debt; on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign power to take possession, even temporarily, of
the custom-houses of an American republic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations; for such temporary occupation
might turn into a permanent occupation.

The only escape from these alternatives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement
by which so much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid. It is far better that this country should put through such
an arrangement, rather than allow any foreign country to undertake it. To do so insures the defaulting republic from having
to pay debt of an improper character under duress, while it also insures honest creditors of the republic from being passed
by in the interest of dishonest or grasping creditors. Moreover, for the United States to take such a position offers the
only possible way of insuring us against a clash with some foreign power. The position is, therefore, in the interest of peace
as well as in the interest of justice. It is of benefit to our people; it is of benefit to foreign peoples; and most of all
it is really of benefit to the people of the country concerned.

This brings me to what should be one of the fundamental objects of the Monroe Doctrine. We must ourselves in good faith try
to help upward toward peace and order those of our sister republics which need such help. Just as there has been a gradual
growth of the ethical element in the relations of one individual to another, so we are, even though slowly, more and more
coming to recognize the duty of bearing one another's burdens, not only as among individuals but also as among nations.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 11, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 1131-1181.

There has been a change of government. It began two years ago, when the House of Representatives became Democratic by a decisive
majority. It has now been completed. The Senate about to assemble will also be Democratic. The offices of President and Vice-President
have been put into the hands of Democrats. What does the change mean? That is the question that is uppermost in our minds
to-day. That is the question I am going to try to answer, in order, if I may, to interpret the occasion.

It means much more than the mere success of a party. The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that
party for a large and definite purpose. No one can mistake the purpose for which the Nation now seeks to use the Democratic
Party. It seeks to use it to interpret a change in its own plans and point of view. Some old things with which we had grown
familiar, and which had begun to creep into the very habit of our thought and of our lives, have altered their aspect as we
have latterly looked critically upon them, with fresh, awakened eyes; have dropped their disguises and shown themselves alien
and sinister. Some new things, as we look frankly upon them, willing to comprehend their real character, have come to assume
the aspect of things long believed in and familiar, stuff of our own convictions. We have been refreshed by a new insight
into our own life.

We see that in many things that life is very great. It is incomparably great in its material aspects, in its body of wealth,
in the diversity and sweep of its energy, in the industries which have been conceived and built up by the genius of individual
men and the limitless enterprise of groups of men. It is great, also, very great, in its moral force. Nowhere else in the
world have noble men and women exhibited in more striking forms the beauty and the energy of sympathy and helpfulness and
counsel in their efforts to rectify wrong, alleviate suffering, and set the weak in the way of strength and hope. We have
built up, moreover, a great system of government, which has stood through a long age as in many respects a model for those
who seek to set liberty upon foundations that will endure against fortuitous change, against storm and accident. Our life
contains every great thing, and contains it in rich abundance.

But the evil has come with the good, and much fine gold has been corroded. With riches has come inexcusable waste. We have
squandered a great part of what we might have used, and have not stopped to conserve the exceeding bounty of nature, without
which our genius for enterprise would have been worthless and impotent, scorning to be careful, shamefully prodigal as well
as admirably efficient. We have been proud of our industrial achievements, but we have not hitherto stopped thoughtfully enough
to count the human cost, the cost of lives snuffed out, of energies overtaxed and broken, the fearful physical and spiritual
cost to the men and women and children upon whom the dead weight and burden of it all has fallen pitilessly the years through.
The groans and agony of it all had not yet reached our ears, the solemn, moving undertone of our life, coming up out of the
mines and factories, and out of every home where the struggle had its intimate and familiar seat. With the great Government
went many deep secret things which we too long delayed to look into and scrutinize with candid, fearless eyes. The great Government
we loved has too often been made use of for private and selfish purposes, and those who used it had forgotten the people.

At last a vision has been vouchsafed us of our life as a whole. We see the bad with the good, the debased and decadent with
the sound and vital. With this vision we approach new affairs. Our duty is to cleanse, to reconsider, to restore, to correct
the evil without impairing the good, to purify and humanize every process of our common life without weakening or sentimentalizing
it. There has been something crude and heartless and unfeeling in our haste to succeed and be great. Our thought has been
"Let every man look out for himself, let every generation look out for itself," while we reared giant machinery which made
it impossible that any but those who stood at the levers of control should have a chance to look out for themselves. We had
not forgotten our morals. We remembered well enough that we had set up a policy which was meant to serve the humblest as well
as the most powerful, with an eye single to the standards of justice and fair play, and remembered it with pride. But we were
very heedless and in a hurry to be great.

We have come now to the sober second thought. The scales of heedlessness have fallen from our eyes. We have made up our minds
to square every process of our national life again with the standards we so proudly set up at the beginning and have always
carried at our hearts. Our work is a work of restoration.

We have itemized with some degree of particularity the things that ought to be altered and here are some of the chief items:
A tariff which cuts us off from our proper part in the commerce of the world, violates the just principles of taxation, and
makes the Government a facile instrument in the hand of private interests; a banking and currency system based upon the necessity
of the Government to sell its bonds fifty years ago and perfectly adapted to concentrating cash and restricting credits; an
industrial system which, take it on all its sides, financial as well as administrative, holds capital in leading strings,
restricts the liberties and limits the opportunities of labor, and exploits without renewing or conserving the natural resources
of the country; a body of agricultural activities never yet given the efficiency of great business undertakings or served
as it should be through the instrumentality of science taken directly to the farm, or afforded the facilities of credit best
suited to its practical needs; watercourses undeveloped, waste places unreclaimed, forests untended, fast disappearing without
plan or prospect of renewal, unregarded waste heaps at every mine. We have studied as perhaps no other nation has the most
effective means of production, but we have not studied cost or economy as we should either as organizers of industry, as statesmen,
or as individuals.

Nor have we studied and perfected the means by which government may be put at the service of humanity, in safeguarding the
health of the Nation, the health of its men and its women and its children, as well as their rights in the struggle for existence.
This is no sentimental duty. The firm basis of government is justice, not pity. These are matters of justice. There can be
no equality or opportunity, the first essential of justice in the body politic, if men and women and children be not shielded
in their lives, their very vitality, from the consequences of great industrial and social processes which they can not alter,
control, or singly cope with. Society must see to it that it does not itself crush or weaken or damage its own constituent
parts. The first duty of law is to keep sound the society it serves. Sanitary laws, pure food laws, and laws determining conditions
of labor which individuals are powerless to determine for themselves are intimate parts of the very business of justice and
legal efficiency.

These are some of the things we ought to do, and not leave the others undone, the old-fashioned, never-to-be-neglected, fundamental
safeguarding of property and of individual right. This is the high enterprise of the new day: To lift everything that concerns
our life as a Nation to the light that shines from the hearthfire of every man's conscience and vision of the right. It is
inconceivable that we should do this as partisans; it is inconceivable we should do it in ignorance of the facts as they are
or in blind haste. We shall restore, not destroy. We shall deal with our economic system as it is and as it may be modified,
not as it might be if we had a clean sheet of paper to write upon; and step by step we shall make it what it should be, in
the spirit of those who question their own wisdom and seek counsel and knowledge, not shallow self-satisfaction or the excitement
of excursions whither they can not tell. Justice, and only justice, shall always be our motto.

And yet it will be no cool process of mere science. The Nation has been deeply stirred, stirred by a solemn passion, stirred
by the knowledge of wrong, of ideals lost, of government too often debauched and made an instrument of evil. The feelings
with which we face this new age of right and opportunity sweep across our heartstrings like some air out of God's own presence,
where justice and mercy are reconciled and the judge and the brother are one. We know our task to be no mere task of politics
but a task which shall search us through and through, whether we be able to understand our time and the need of our people,
whether we be indeed their spokesmen and interpreters, whether we have the pure heart to comprehend and the rectified will
to choose our high course of action.

This is not a day of triumph; it is a day of dedication. Here muster, not the forces of party, but the forces of humanity.
Men's hearts wait upon us; men's lives hang in the balance; men's hopes call upon us to say what we will do. Who shall live
up to the great trust? Who dares fail to try? I summon all honest men, all patriotic, all forward-looking men, to my side.
God helping me, I will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me!

President Truman declared that the United States would undertake the development of a hydrogen bomb on January 31, 1950. On April 6, 1952, it was announced that the U.S. was already manufacturing such a bomb; on November
1 of the same year the first bomb containing hydrogen ingredients was exploded at Eniwetok Island in the South Pacific. The
new weapon made the old atomic bomb that had destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem like a child's toy. Tests of various hydrogen
devices continued throughout 1953, and there was widespread fear that fallout from these experiments would contaminate the
atmosphere even if the explosions themselves did not start a "chain reaction" that would destroy the entire earth. In this
climate of mounting terror President Eisenhower appeared before the United Nations on December 8, 1953, and delivered the speech reprinted here in part, which spelled out the alternatives facing the peoples
of the world in the face of the awesome new power.

I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new, one which I, who have spent so much of my life in the
military profession, would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare.

The Atomic Age has moved forward at such a pace that every citizen of the world should have some comprehension, at least in
comparative terms, of the extent of this development, of the utmost significance to every one of us. Clearly, if the peoples
of the world are to conduct an intelligent search for peace, they must be armed with the significant facts of today's existence.

My recital of atomic danger and power is necessarily stated in United States terms, for these are the only incontrovertible
facts that I know. I need hardly point out to this Assembly, however, that this subject is global, not merely national in
character.

On July 16, 1945, the United States set off the world's biggest atomic explosion. Since that date in 1945, the United States
of America has conducted forty-two test explosions. Atomic bombs are more than twenty-five times as powerful as the weapons
with which the Atomic Age dawned, while hydrogen weapons are in the ranges of millions of tons of TNT equivalent.

Today, the United States stockpile of atomic weapons, which, of course, increases daily, exceeds by many times the total equivalent
of the total of all bombs and all shells that came from every plane and every gun in every theater of war in all the years
of World War II. A single air group, whether afloat or land based, can now deliver to any reachable target a destructive cargo
exceeding in power all the bombs that fell on Britain in all World War II.

In size and variety, the development of atomic weapons has been no less remarkable. The development has been such that atomic
weapons have virtually achieved conventional status within our armed services. In the United States, the Army, the Navy, the
Air Force, and the Marine Corps are all capable of putting this weapon to military use.

But the dread secret and the fearful engines of atomic might are not ours alone. In the first place, the secret is possessed
by our friends and allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, whose scientific genius made a tremendous contribution to our original
discoveries and the designs of atomic bombs. The secret is also known by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has informed us
that, over recent years, it has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons. During this period the Soviet Union has exploded
a series of atomic devices, including at least one involving thermonuclear reactions.

If at one time the United States possessed what might have been called a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to
exist several years ago. Therefore, although our earlier start has permitted us to accumulate what is today a great quantitative
advantage, the atomic realities of today comprehend two facts of even greater significance. First, the knowledge now possessed
by several nations will eventually be shared by others, possibly all others. Second, even a vast superiority in numbers of
weapons, and a consequent capability of devastating retaliation, is no preventive, of itself, against the fearful material
damage and toll of human lives that would be inflicted by surprise aggression.

The free world, at least dimly aware of these facts, has naturally embarked on a large program of warning and defense systems.
That program will be accelerated and extended. But let no one think that the expenditure of vast sums for weapons and systems
of defense can guarantee absolute safety for the cities and citizens of any nation. The awful arithmetic of the atomic bomb
does not permit of any such easy solution. Even against the most powerful defense, an aggressor in possession of the effective
minimum number of atomic bombs for a surprise attack could probably place a sufficient number of his bombs on the chosen targets
to cause hideous damage.

Should such an atomic attack be launched against the United States, our reactions would be swift and resolute. But for me
to say that the defense capabilities of the United States are such that they could inflict terrible losses upon an aggressor,
for me to say that the retaliation capabilities of the United States are so great that such an aggressor's land would be laid
waste, all this, while fact, is not the true expression of the purpose and the hopes of the United States.

To pause there would be to confirm the hopeless finality of a belief that two atomic colossi are doomed malevolently to eye
each other indefinitely across a trembling world. To stop there would be to accept helplessly the probability of civilization
destroyed, the annihilation of the irreplaceable heritage of mankind handed down to us from generation to generation, and
the condemnation of mankind to begin all over again the age-old struggle upward from savagery toward decency and right and
justice. . . .

Most recently we have received from the Soviet Union what is in effect an expression of willingness to hold a four-power meeting.
Along with our allies, the United Kingdom and France, we were pleased to see that this note did not contain the unacceptable
preconditions previously put forward. . . . The United States, the United Kingdom, and France have agreed promptly to meet
with the Soviet Union.

The government of the United States approaches this conference with hopeful sincerity. We will bend every effort of our minds
to the single purpose of emerging from that conference with tangible results towards peace, the only true way of lessening
international tension.

We never have, and never will, propose or suggest that the Soviet Union surrender what rightfully belongs to it. We will never
say that the peoples of the U.S.S.R. are an enemy with whom we have no desire ever to deal or mingle in friendly and fruitful
relationship. On the contrary, we hope that this coming conference may initiate a relationship with the Soviet Union which
will eventually bring about a freer mingling of the peoples of the East and of the West--the one sure, human way of developing
the understanding required for confident and peaceful relations.

Instead of the discontent which is now settling upon Eastern Germany, occupied Austria, and the countries of Eastern Europe,
we seek a harmonious family of free European nations, with none a threat to the other, and least of all a threat to the peoples
of the U.S.S.R. Beyond the turmoil and strife and misery of Asia, we seek peaceful opportunity for these peoples to develop
their natural resources and to elevate their lot.

These are not idle words or shallow visions. Behind them lies a story of nations lately come to independence, not as a result
of war but through free grant or peaceful negotiation. There is a record already written of assistance gladly given by nations
of the West to needy peoples and to those suffering the temporary effects of famine, drought, and natural disaster. These
are deeds of peace. They speak more loudly than promises or protestations of peaceful intent.

But I do not wish to rest either upon the reiteration of past proposals or the restatement of past deeds. The gravity of the
time is such that every new avenue of peace, no matter how dimly discernible, should be explored.

There is at least one new avenue of peace which has not been well explored--an avenue now laid out by the General Assembly
of the United Nations. In its resolution of Nov. 28, 1953, this General Assembly suggested

that the Disarmament Commission study the desirability of establishing a subcommittee consisting of representatives of the
powers principally involved, which should seek in private an acceptable solution and report . . . on such a solution to the
General Assembly and to the Security Council not later than Sept. 1, 1954.

The United States, heeding the suggestion of the General Assembly of the United Nations, is instantly prepared to meet privately
with such other countries as may be "principally involved," to seek "an acceptable solution" to the atomic armaments race
which overshadows not only the peace but the very life of the world.

We shall carry into these private or diplomatic talks a new conception. The United States would seek more than the mere reduction
or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers.
It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive
forces can be developed into a great boon for the benefit of all mankind. The United States knows that peaceful power from
atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here today. Who can doubt that, if the entire body of the
world's scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas,
this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage?

To hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of the people and the governments of the East
and West, there are certain steps that can be taken now. I therefore make the following proposals:

The governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, should begin now and continue to make
joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international atomic energy agency.
We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations. The ratios of contributions, the
procedures and other details would properly be within the scope of the "private conversations" I referred to earlier.

The United States is prepared to undertake these explorations in good faith. Any partner of the United States acting in the
same good faith will find the United States a not unreasonable or ungenerous associate.

Undoubtedly, initial and early contributions to this plan would be small in quantity. However, the proposal has the great
virtue that it can be undertaken without the irritations and mutual suspicions incident to any attempt to set up a completely
acceptable system of worldwide inspection and control.

The atomic energy agency could be made responsible for the impounding, storage, and protection of the contributed fissionable
and other materials. The ingenuity of our scientists will provide special safe conditions under which such a bank of fissionable
material can be made essentially immune to surprise seizure.

The more important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material
would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs
of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy
in the power-starved areas of the world.

Thus the contributing powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.

The United States would be more than willing--it would be proud--to take up with others "principally involved" the development
of plans whereby such peaceful use of atomic energy would be expedited. Of those "principally involved" the Soviet Union must,
of course, be one.

I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, any such plan
that would, first, encourage worldwide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material, and with
the certainty that the investigators had all the material needed for the conducting of all experiments that were appropriate;
second, begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world's atomic stockpiles; third, allow all peoples of all
nations to see that, in this enlightened age, the great powers of the earth, both of the East and of the West, are interested
in human aspirations first rather than in building up the armaments of war; fourth, open up a new channel for peaceful discussion
and initiative, at least, a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved in both private and public conversations
if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear and is to make positive progress towards peace.

Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength but also the desire
and the hope for peace.

The coming months will be fraught with fateful decisions. In this Assembly, in the capitals and military headquarters of the
world, in the hearts of men everywhere, be they governed or governors, may they be the decisions which will lead this world
out of fear and into peace.

To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination
to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma--to devote its entire heart and mind to finding the way by which the miraculous inventiveness
of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.

Source: United Nations: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighth Session, Plenary Meetings, September 15-December 9, 1953, pp. 450-452.

When four years ago we met to inaugurate a President, the Republic, single-minded in anxiety, stood in spirit here. We dedicated
ourselves to the fulfillment of a vision-to speed the time when there would be for all the people that security and peace
essential to the pursuit of happiness. We of the Republic pledged ourselves to drive from the temple of our ancient faith
those who had profaned it; to end by action, tireless and unafraid, the stagnation and despair of that day. We did those first
things first.

Our covenant with ourselves did not stop there. Instinctively we recognized a deeper need-the need to find through government
the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated
attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had
been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant
instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces
and blindly selfish men.

We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to protect its people against disasters
once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way
to master economic epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master epidemics of disease.
We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster.

In this we Americans were discovering no wholly new truth; we were writing a new chapter in our book of self-government.

This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Constitutional Convention which made us a nation. At that
Convention our forefathers found the way out of the chaos which followed the Revolutionary War; they created a strong government
with powers of united action sufficient then and now to solve problems utterly beyond individual or local solution. A century
and a half ago they established the Federal Government in order to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to the American people.

Today we invoke those same powers of government to achieve the same objectives.

Four years of new experience have not belied our historic instinct. They hold out the clear hope that government within communities,
government within the separate States, and government of the United States can do the things the times require, without yielding
its democracy. Our tasks in the last four years did not force democracy to take a holiday.

Nearly all of us recognize that as intricacies of human relationships increase, so power to govern them also must increase-power
to stop evil; power to do good. The essential democracy of our Nation and the safety of our people depend not upon the absence
of power, but upon lodging it with those whom the people can change or continue at stated intervals through an honest and
free system of elections. The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.

In fact, in these last four years, we have made the exercise of all power more democratic; for we have begun to bring private
autocratic powers into their proper subordination to the public's government. The legend that they were invincible-above and
beyond the processes of a democracy-has been shattered. They have been challenged and beaten.

Our progress out of the depression is obvious. But that is not all that you and I mean by the new order of things. Our pledge was not merely to do a patchwork
job with secondhand materials. By using the new materials of social justice we have undertaken to erect on the old foundations
a more enduring structure for the better use of future generations.

In that purpose we have been helped by achievements of mind and spirit. Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been
unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the
collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality
pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an
instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

This new understanding undermines the old admiration of worldly success as such. We are beginning to abandon our tolerance
of the abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life.

In this process evil things formerly accepted will not be so easily condoned. Hard-headedness will not so easily excuse hard-heartedness.
We are moving toward an era of good feeling. But we realize that there can be no era of good feeling save among men of good
will.

For these reasons I am justified in believing that the greatest change we have witnessed has been the change in the moral
climate of America.

Among men of good will, science and democracy together offer an ever-richer life and ever-larger satisfaction to the individual.
With this change in our moral climate and our rediscovered ability to improve our economic order, we have set our feet upon
the road of enduring progress.

Shall we pause now and turn our back upon the road that lies ahead? Shall we call this the promised land? Or, shall we continue
on our way? For "each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth."

Many voices are heard as we face a great decision. Comfort says, "Tarry a while." Opportunism says, "This is a good spot."
Timidity asks, "How difficult is the road ahead?"

True, we have come far from the days of stagnation and despair. Vitality has been preserved. Courage and confidence have been
restored. Mental and moral horizons have been extended.

But our present gains were won under the pressure of more than ordinary circumstances. Advance became imperative under the
goad of fear and suffering. The times were on the side of progress.

To hold to progress today, however, is more difficult. Dulled conscience, irresponsibility, and ruthless self-interest already
reappear. Such symptoms of prosperity may become portents of disaster! Prosperity already tests the persistence of our progressive
purpose.

Let us ask again: Have we reached the goal of our vision of that fourth day of March 1933? Have we found our happy valley?

I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. Its hundred and thirty million
people are at peace among themselves; they are making their country a good neighbor among the nations. I see a United States
which can demonstrate that, under democratic methods of government, national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume
of human comforts hitherto unknown, and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens-a substantial part of its
whole population-who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities
of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society
half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness
to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope-because the Nation, seeing and understanding
the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country's
interest and concern; and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test
of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those
who have too little.

If I know aught of the spirit and purpose of our Nation, we will not listen to Comfort, Opportunism, and Timidity. We will
carry on.

Overwhelmingly, we of the Republic are men and women of good will; men and women who have more than warm hearts of dedication;
men and women who have cool heads and willing hands of practical purpose as well. They will insist that every agency of popular
government use effective instruments to carry out their will.

Government is competent when all who compose it work as trustees for the whole people. It can make constant progress when
it keeps abreast of all the facts. It can obtain justified support and legitimate criticism when the people receive true information
of all that government does.

If I know aught of the will of our people, they will demand that these conditions of effective government shall be created
and maintained. They will demand a nation uncorrupted by cancers of injustice and, therefore, strong among the nations in
its example of the will to peace.

Today we reconsecrate our country to long-cherished ideals in a suddenly changed civilization. In every land there are always
at work forces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But
in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people.

To maintain a democracy of effort requires a vast amount of patience in dealing with differing methods, a vast amount of humility.
But out of the confusion of many voices rises an understanding of dominant public need. Then political leadership can voice
common ideals, and aid in their realization.

In taking again the oath of office as President of the United States, I assume the solemn obligation of leading the American
people forward along the road over which they have chosen to advance.

While this duty rests upon me I shall do my utmost to speak their purpose and to do their will, seeking Divine guidance to
help us each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet into the way of peace.

After the surrender of Fort Sumter on April 14, 1861, Lincoln immediately issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 soldiers
to suppress the insurrection. At the same time he called for a special session of Congress to convene on the Fourth of July.
When the session convened, Lincoln explained the case against the South, outlined the measures he had taken against the rebellion,
and defined the purpose of the war. At this early stage, even Lincoln did not foresee the bloody and protracted struggle that
lay ahead. Lincoln's message is reprinted below.

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Having been convened on an extraordinary occasion, as authorized by the Constitution, your attention is not called to any
ordinary subject of legislation.

At the beginning of the present presidential term, four months ago, the functions of the Federal government were found to
be generally suspended within the several states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida,
excepting only those of the Post Office Department.

Within these states all the forts, arsenals, dockyards, customhouses, and the like, including the movable and stationary property
in and about them, had been seized and were held in open hostility to this government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor,
and Jefferson, on and near the Florida coast, and Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The forts thus seized
had been put in improved condition, new ones had been built, and armed forces had been organized and were organizing, all
avowedly with the same hostile purpose.

The forts remaining in the possession of the Federal government in and near those states were either besieged or menaced by
warlike preparations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by well-protected hostile batteries, with guns equal
in quality to the best of its own and outnumbering the latter as perhaps ten to one. A disproportionate share of the Federal
muskets and rifles had somehow found their way into these states, and had been seized to be used against the government. Accumulations
of the public revenue lying within them had been seized for the same object. The Navy was scattered in distant seas, leaving
but a very small part of it within the immediate reach of the government. Officers of the Federal Army and Navy had resigned
in great numbers, and, of those resigning, a large proportion had taken up arms against the government. Simultaneously and
in connection with all this the purpose to sever the Federal Union was openly avowed. In accordance with this purpose, an
ordinance had been adopted in each of these states declaring the states respectively to be separated from the national Union.
A formula for instituting a combined government of these states had been promulgated, and this illegal organization, in the
character of Confederate States, was already invoking recognition, aid, and intervention from foreign powers.

Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming executive to prevent, if possible,
the consummation of such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable. This choice
was made and was declared in the inaugural address. The policy chosen looked to the exhaustion of all peaceful measures before
a resort to any stronger ones. It sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the government
and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box. It promised a continuance of the
mails at government expense to the very people who were resisting the government, and it gave repeated pledges against any
disturbance to any of the people or any of their rights. Of all that which a President might constitutionally and justifiably
do in such a case, everything was forborne without which it was believed possible to keep the government on foot.

On the 5th of March, the present incumbent's first full day in office, a letter of Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter,
written on the 28th of February and received at the War Department on the 4th of March, was by that department placed in his
hands. This letter expressed the professional opinion of the writer that reenforcements could not be thrown into that fort
within the time for his relief rendered necessary by the limited supply of provisions, and with a view of holding possession
of the same, with a force of less than 20,000 good and well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the officers
of his command, and their memoranda on the subject were made enclosures of Major Anderson's letter.

The whole was immediately laid before Lieutenant General Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson in opinion. On reflection,
however, he took full time, consulting with other officers, both of the Army and the Navy, and at the end of four days came
reluctantly, but decidedly, to the same conclusion as before. He also stated at the same time that no such sufficient force
was then at the control of the government or could be raised and brought to the ground within the time when the provisions
in the fort would be exhausted. In a purely military point of view this reduced the duty of the administration in the case
to the mere matter of getting the garrison safely out of the fort.

It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position under the circumstances would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity
under which it was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that at home it would discourage the friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far to insure to the
latter a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be our national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed. Starvation
was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be reached, Fort Pickens might be reenforced. This last would be a clear indication
of policy, and would better enable the country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military necessity.

An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land but must take the longer and slower route by sea. The first return news
from the order was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was that the officer commanding
the Sabine, to which vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi-armistice of the late administration (and of the existence of which the present administration, up
to the time the order was dispatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had refused to land the troops.
To now reenforce Fort Pickens before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was impossible, rendered so by the near exhaustion
of provisions in the latter named fort. In precaution against such a conjuncture, the government had a few days before commenced
preparing an expedition, as well-adapted as might be, to relieve Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately
used or not, according to circumstances. The strongest anticipated case for using it was now presented, and it was resolved
to send it forward.

As had been intended in this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of South Carolina that he might expect
an attempt would be made to provision the fort, and that if the attempt should not be resisted there would be no effort to
throw in men, arms, or ammunition without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort. This notice was accordingly
given, whereupon the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition.

It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of
the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew
-- they were expressly notified -- that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which
would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this government
desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve
the Union from actual and immediate dissolution, trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot box
for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object -- to drive out the visible
authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution.

That this was their object the executive well understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "You can have
no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he took pains not only to keep this declaration good but also to keep
the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry as that the world should not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair
at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the government
began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort, sent
to that harbor years before for their own protection, and still ready to give the protection in whatever was lawful. In this
act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue: "Immediate dissolution or blood."

And this issue embraces more than the fate of the United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether
a constitutional republic, or democracy -- a government of the people by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial
integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to
control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other
pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government and thus practically put an end to free government
upon the earth. It forces us to ask -- Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity
be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?

So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the government and so to resist force employed for
its destruction by force for its preservation. . . .

It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession"
or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their
treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride
in and reverence for the history and government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They
knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced
by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly
logical steps through all the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any state of
the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right
is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice.

With rebellion thus sugarcoated, they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years, and
until at length they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretense of taking their state out of the Union who could have been brought
to no such thing the day before.

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred
supremacy pertaining to a state -- to each state of our Federal Union. Our states have neither more nor less power than that
reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a state out of the Union. The original
ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the
Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated
a state. The new ones only took the designation of states on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for
the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent
states"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterward abundantly show.

The express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later,
that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive. Having never been states, either in substance or in name, outside of
the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "state rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?
Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the states, but the word even is not in the national Constitution, nor, as is believed,
in any of the state constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define
it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our states, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty;
and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United
States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law
of the land.

The states have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do
so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty.
By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any
of the states, and, in fact, it created them as states. Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the
Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them states, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a state constitution
independent of the Union. Of course it is not forgotten that all the new states framed their constitutions before they entered
the Union, nevertheless dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.

Unquestionably the states have the powers and rights reserved to them in and by the national Constitution; but among these
surely are not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but at most such only as were known in
the world at the time as governmental powers; and certainly a power to destroy the government itself had never been known
as a governmental -- as a merely administrative -- power. This relative matter of national power and state rights, as a principle,
is no other than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole -- to the general government -- while whatever concerns only
the state should be left exclusively to the state. This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the national
Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to be questioned.
We are all bound by that defining without question.

What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it, and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust
or absurd consequences. . . .

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have assumed to make a national constitution of their
own, in which of necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby admit that on principle
it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained it, by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they
must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts or effecting any other selfish
or unjust object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which no government can possibly endure.

If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder
politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that
precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that
one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a
minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle
and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the
Preamble, calling itself "We, the people."

It may well be questioned whether there is today a majority of the legally qualified voters of any state, except, perhaps,
South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not
in every other one, of the so-called seceded states. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured
to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are
all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election
all that large class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. . . .

This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and
substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders;
to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. Yielding
to partial and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend.
. . .

Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it our people have already settled -- the successful
establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains: its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can
fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets,
and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there
can be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace, teaching
men that what they cannot take by an election neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners
of a war.

Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what is to be the course of the government toward the Southern
states after the rebellion shall have been suppressed, the executive deems it proper to say it will be his purpose then, as
ever, to be guided by the Constitution and the laws, and that he probably will have no different understanding of the powers
and duties of the Federal government relatively to the rights of the states and the people under the Constitution than that
expressed in the inaugural address.

He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered for all as it was administered by the men who made it.
Loyal citizens everywhere have the right to claim this of their government, and the government has no right to withhold or
neglect it. It is not perceived that in giving it there is any coercion, any conquest, or any subjugation in any just sense
of those terms.

The Constitution provides, and all the states have accepted the provision, that "the United States shall guarantee to every
state in this Union a republican form of government." But if a state may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so it may
also discard the republican form of government, so that to prevent its going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it are also lawful
and obligatory.

It was with the deepest regret that the executive found the duty of employing the war power in defense of the government forced
upon him. He could but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the government. No compromise by public servants could
in this case be a cure; not that compromises are not often proper, but that no popular government can long survive a marked
precedent that those who carry an election can only save the government from immediate destruction by giving up the main point
upon which the people gave the election. The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate
decisions.

As a private citizen the executive could not have consented that these institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal
of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, not
even to count the chances of his own life, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he has so far done
what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views
and your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who have been disturbed in their rights of a certain
and speedy restoration to them under the Constitution and the laws.

And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God and go forward without
fear and with manly hearts.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 6, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 20-31.

Many of the "pet banks" in which federal funds had been deposited defaulted during the Panic of 1837. As a consequence of
the bank failures and the inability to raise public funds in an economy beset by a servere depression, it appeared that the
current expenses of the federal government could not be covered. To deal with this situation, Martin Van Buren, the newly
elected President, called a special session of Congress that assembled in Washington on September 4, 1837. To solve the fiscal
problems of the government, Van Buren proposed a further extension of the hard-money policy and backed an independent treasury.
The proposal, which in effect meant that the government would handle its own funds and require payment in legal tender, was
the final step in the divorce of bank and state that Jackson had initiated. The business community, which had been hoping
for a revival of the National Bank, smoldered in silence. A portion of Van Buren's message is reprinted below.

Two nations, the most commercial in the world, enjoying but recently the highest degree of apparent prosperity and maintaining
with each other the closest relations, are suddenly, in a time of profound peace and without any great national disaster,
arrested in their career and plunged into a state of embarrassment and distress. In both countries we have witnessed the same
redundancy of paper money and other facilities of credit; the same spirit of speculation; the same partial successes; the
same difficulties and reverses; and, at length, nearly the same overwhelming catastrophe. The most material difference between
the results in the two countries has only been that with us there has also occurred an extensive derangement in the fiscal
affairs of the federal and state governments, occasioned by the suspension of specie payments by the banks.

The history of these causes and effects in Great Britain and the United States is substantially the history of the revulsion
in all other commercial countries.

The present and visible effects of these circumstances on the operations of the government and on the industry of the people
point out the objects which call for your immediate attention.

They are: to regulate by law the safekeeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public moneys; to designate the funds to be
received and paid by the government; to enable the Treasury to meet promptly every demand upon it; to prescribe the terms
of indulgence and the mode of settlement to be adopted, as well in collecting from individuals the revenue that has accrued
as in withdrawing it from former depositories; and to devise and adopt such further measures, within the constitutional competency
of Congress, as will be best calculated to revive the enterprise and to promote the prosperity of the country. . . .

The plan proposed will be adequate to all our fiscal operations during the remainder of the year. Should it be adopted, the
Treasury, aided by the ample resources of the country, will be able to discharge punctually every pecuniary obligation. For
the future all that is needed will be that caution and forbearance in appropriations which the diminution of the revenue requires
and which the complete accomplishment or great forwardness of many expensive national undertakings renders equally consistent
with prudence and patriotic liberality.

The preceding suggestions and recommendations are submitted in the belief that their adoption by Congress will enable the
Executive Department to conduct our fiscal concerns with success so far as their management has been committed to it. While
the objects and the means proposed to attain them are within its constitutional powers and appropriate duties, they will,
at the same time, it is hoped, by their necessary operation, afford essential aid in the transaction of individual concerns,
and thus yield relief to the people at large in a form adapted to the nature of our government. Those who look to the action
of this government for specific aid to the citizen to relieve embarrassments arising from losses by revulsions in commerce
and credit lose sight of the ends for which it was created and the powers with which it is clothed.

It was established to give security to us all in our lawful and honorable pursuits, under the lasting safeguard of republican
institutions. It was not intended to confer special favors on individuals or on any classes of them, to create systems of
agriculture, manufactures, or trade, or to engage in them either separately or in connection with individual citizens or organized
associations. If its operations were to be directed for the benefit of any one class, equivalent favors must in justice be
extended to the rest; and the attempt to bestow such favors with an equal hand, or even to select those who should most deserve
them, would never be successful.

All communities are apt to look to government for too much. Even in our own country, where its powers and duties are so strictly
limited, we are prone to do so, especially at periods of sudden embarrassment and distress. But this ought not to be. The
framers of our excellent Constitution and the people who approved it with calm and sagacious deliberation acted at the time
on a sounder principle. They wisely judged that the less government interferes with private pursuits the better for the general
prosperity. It is not its legitimate object to make men rich or to repair by direct grants of money or legislation in favor
of particular pursuits, losses not incurred in the public service. This would be substantially to use the property of some
for the benefit of others. But its real duty -- that duty the performance of which makes a good government the most precious
of human blessings -- is to enact and enforce a system of general laws commensurate with, but not exceeding, the objects of
its establishment, and to leave every citizen and every interest to reap under its benign protection the rewards of virtue,
industry, and prudence.

I cannot doubt that on this as on all similar occasions the federal government will find its agency most conducive to the
security and happiness of the people when limited to the exercise of its conceded powers. In never assuming, even for a well-meant
object, such powers as were not designed to be conferred upon it, we shall in reality do most for the general welfare. To
avoid every unnecessary interference with the pursuits of the citizen will result in more benefit than to adopt measures which
could only assist limited interests, and are eagerly, but perhaps naturally, sought for under the pressure of temporary circumstances.
If, therefore, I refrain from suggesting to Congress any specific plan for regulating the exchanges of the country, relieving
mercantile embarrassments, or interfering with the ordinary operations of foreign or domestic commerce, it is from a conviction
that such measures are not within the constitutional province of the general government, and that their adoption would not
promote the real and permanent welfare of those they might be designed to aid.

The difficulties and distresses of the times, though unquestionably great, are limited in their extent, and cannot be regarded
as affecting the permanent prosperity of the nation. Arising in a great degree from the transactions of foreign and domestic
commerce, it is upon them that they have chiefly fallen. The great agricultural interest has in many parts of the country
suffered comparatively little, and, as if Providence intended to display the munificence of its goodness at the moment of
our greatest need, and in direct contrast to the evils occasioned by the waywardness of man, we have been blessed throughout
our extended territory with a season of general health and of uncommon fruitfulness.

The proceeds of our great staples will soon furnish the means of liquidating debts at home and abroad, and contribute equally
to the revival of commercial activity and the restoration of commercial credit. The banks, established avowedly for its support,
deriving their profits from it, and resting under obligations to it which cannot be overlooked, will feel at once the necessity
and justice of uniting their energies with those of the mercantile interest.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 3, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 324-346.

In the popular mind the Emancipation Proclamation transformed the Civil War from a struggle to preserve the Union into a crusade for human freedom. But at the time of its issuance, its actual provisions
had already largely been enacted into law by Congress, which had provided for the freeing of slaves of owners hostile to the
Union, the prohibition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the territories, and the freeing of slave-soldiers. The
Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were
under Confederate control; in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized. It did,
however, tremendously boost Union morale, breed disaffection in the South, and bolster support for the Union cause in Europe.
The real significance of the document lay in the political factors that brought it to fruition and in the delicate political
balance it preserved. By the summer of 1862, President Abraham Lincoln had exhausted all other schemes short of full emancipation.
African Americans in the North had objected to his offer of colonization; the border states disapproved of his proposal of
compensated emancipation; and Abolitionists were demanding a more radical course. The military position of the North had deteriorated
when on July 22, 1862, Lincoln called together his cabinet to discuss emancipation. The president later described this fateful
day in a conversation with the painter Frank Carpenter. “Things had gone on from bad to worse,” said Lincoln, “until I felt
that we had reached the end of our rope.We had about played our last card, and must change our tactics, or lose the game!”
Lincoln had prepared a draft of the proclamation prior to the cabinet meeting, “without consultation with or the knowledge
of the Cabinet.” The majority of the cabinet were enthusiastic, including Secretary of State William Seward, who, however,
raised an objection to its timing. Seward argued that Lincoln should postpone the proclamation until the Union had achieved
some military success, otherwise “it may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help.” Lincoln
heeded this advice. After the decisive Battle of Antietam (September 17) stopped the Confederate advance upon Washington,
D.C., Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation as reprinted here was issued on January 1,
1863.

Whereas, on the 22nd day of September, in the year of our Lord 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States,
containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

That on the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part
of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize
and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom.

That the executive will, on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if
any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any
state or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members
chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such states shall have participated shall, in the
absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof are not then
in rebellion against the United States.

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as a commander in
chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of
the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January,
in the year of our Lord 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of 100 days
from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof, respectively,
are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James,
Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi,
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West
Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including
the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation
were not issued.

And, by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the United
States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense;
and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the
United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke
the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Source: The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America from the Organization of the Government in 1863, vol. 12, George P. Sanger, ed., 1865, pp. 1268-1269.

Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917, led the United States to break diplomatic relations on February 3. President Wilson continued to hope
for peace, but events seemed to make American involvement more and more inevitable. The publication of the secret "Zimmermann
Note" from the German foreign secretary to his representative in Mexico proposing a Mexican-Japanese-German alliance against
the United States seemed to push the president closer than ever to war. American merchant ships were armed but losses to the
German submarine increased sharply. On April 2 Wilson, fully aware of the terrible consequences of his decision, went before
Congress with the following message calling for a declaration of war. Congress declared war on Germany four days later.

I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made,
and made immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility
of making.

On the 3rd of February last, I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German government
that on and after the 1st day of February it was its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its
submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts
of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean.

That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial
government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that
passenger boats should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek
to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair
chance to save their lives in their open boats. The precautions taken were meager and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing
instance after instance in the progress of the cruel and unmanly business, but a certain degree of restraint was observed.

The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo,
their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy
for those on board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents. Even hospital ships and ships carrying
relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe conduct through the
proscribed areas by the German government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk
with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle.

I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any government that had hitherto subscribed
to the humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its origin in the attempt to set up some law which would
be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world.
By painful stage after stage has that law been built up, with meager enough results, indeed, after all was accomplished that
could be accomplished, but always with a clear view, at least, of what the heart and conscience of mankind demanded.

This minimum of right the German government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity and because it had
no weapons which it could use at sea except these which it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing
to the winds all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse
of the world. I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton
and wholesale destruction of the lives of noncombatants, men, women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always,
even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of
peaceful and innocent people cannot be.

The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. It is a war against all nations. American
ships have been sunk, American lives taken in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of; but the ships and people
of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination.
The challenge is to all mankind.

Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of
counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away.
Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of
right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.

When I addressed the Congress on the 26th of February last, I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with
arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence.
But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines
have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks as the law of nations has
assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open
sea.

It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavor to destroy them before they have shown their
own intention. They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all. The German government denies the right of neutrals
to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed, even in the defense of rights which no modern publicist
has ever before questioned their right to defend. The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on
our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be.

Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than
ineffectual: it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war
without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making:
we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or
violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life.

With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities
which it involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare
the recent course of the Imperial German government to be in fact nothing less than war against the government and people
of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it; and that it take
immediate steps, not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense but also to exert all its power and employ
all its resources to bring the government of the German Empire to terms and end the war.

What this will involve is clear. It will involve the utmost practicable cooperation in counsel and action with the governments
now at war with Germany and, as incident to that, the extension to those governments of the most liberal financial credits,
in order that our resources may so far as possible be added to theirs. It will involve the organization and mobilization of
all the material resources of the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental needs of the nation in the
most abundant and yet the most economical and efficient way possible. It will involve the immediate full equipment of the
Navy in all respects but particularly in supplying it with the best means of dealing with the enemy's submarines. It will
involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the United States already provided for by law in case of war at least
500,000 men, who should, in my opinion, be chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the authorization
of subsequent additional increments of equal force so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training.

It will involve also, of course, the granting of adequate credits to the government, sustained, I hope, so far as they can
equitably be sustained by the present generation, by well-conceived taxation. I say sustained so far as may be equitable by
taxation because it seems to me that it would be most unwise to base the credits which will now be necessary entirely on money
borrowed. It is our duty, I most respectfully urge, to protect our people so far as we may against the very serious hardships
and evils which would be likely to arise out of the inflation which would be produced by vast loans.

In carrying out the measures by which these things are to be accomplished, we should keep constantly in mind the wisdom of
interfering as little as possible in our own preparation and in the equipment of our own military forces with the duty--for
it will be a very practical duty--of supplying the nations already at war with Germany with the materials which they can obtain
only from us or by our assistance. They are in the field and we should help them in every way to be effective there.

I shall take the liberty of suggesting, through the several executive departments of the government, for the consideration
of your committees, measures for the accomplishment of the several objects I have mentioned. I hope that it will be your pleasure
to deal with them as having been framed after very careful thought by the branch of the government upon which the responsibility
of conducting the war and safeguarding the nation will most directly fall.

While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world, what
our motives and our objects are. My own thought has not been driven from its habitual and normal course by the unhappy events
of the last two months, and I do not believe that the thought of the nation has been altered or clouded by them. I have exactly
the same things in mind now that I had in mind when I addressed the Senate on the 22nd of January last; the same that I had
in mind when I addressed the Congress on the 3rd of February and on the 26th of February.

Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and
autocratic power and to set up among the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and
of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where
the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence
of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people.
We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted
that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments
that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.

We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling toward them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon
their impulse that their government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval. It was
a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their
rulers and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed
to use their fellowmen as pawns and tools.

Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical
posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully worked
out only under cover and where no one has the right to ask questions. Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression,
carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts
or behind the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. They are happily impossible where public opinion
commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation's affairs.

A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government
could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honor, a partnership of opinion.
Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no
one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common
end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.

Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful
and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it
best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships
of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit
of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in
origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all
their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is
a fit partner for a League of Honor.

One of the things that has served to convince us that the Prussian autocracy was not and could never be our friend is that
from the very outset of the present war it has filled our unsuspecting communities and even our offices of government with
spies and set criminal intrigues everywhere afoot against our national unity of counsel, our peace within and without, our
industries and our commerce. Indeed, it is now evident that its spies were here even before the war began; and it is unhappily
not a matter of conjecture but a fact proved in our courts of justice that the intrigues which have more than once come perilously
near to disturbing the peace and dislocating the industries of the country have been carried on at the instigation, with the
support, and even under the personal direction of official agents of the Imperial government accredited to the government
of the United States.

Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them, we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible
upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people toward us (who
were no doubt as ignorant of them as we ourselves were) but only in the selfish designs of a government that did what it pleased
and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that government entertains
no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies
against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the German minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence.

We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a government, following such methods, we can
never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what
purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic governments of the world. We are now about to accept gage of
battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify
its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight
thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights
of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We
have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation
for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when
those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.

Just because we fight without rancor and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share
with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe
with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.

I have said nothing of the governments allied with the Imperial government of Germany because they have not made war upon
us or challenged us to defend our right and our honor. The Austro-Hungarian government has, indeed, avowed its unqualified
endorsement and acceptance of the reckless and lawless submarine warfare adopted now without disguise by the Imperial German
government, and it has therefore not been possible for this government to receive Count Tarnowski, the ambassador recently
accredited to this government by the Imperial and Royal government of Austria-Hungary; but that government has not actually
engaged in warfare against citizens of the United States on the seas, and I take the liberty, for the present at least, of
postponing a discussion of our relations with the authorities at Vienna. We enter this war only where we are clearly forced
into it because there are no other means of defending our rights.

It will be all the easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act
without animus, not in enmity toward a people or with the desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in
armed opposition to an irresponsible government which has thrown aside all considerations of humanity and of right and is
running amuck. We are, let me say again, the sincere friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the
early reestablishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us--however hard it may be for them, for the time
being, to believe that this is spoken from our hearts.

We have borne with their present government through all these bitter months because of that friendship--exercising a patience
and forbearance which would otherwise have been impossible. We shall, happily, still have an opportunity to prove that friendship
in our daily attitude and actions toward the millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live among
us and share our life, and we shall be proud to prove it toward all who are in fact loyal to their neighbors and to the government
in the hour of test. They are, most of them, as true and loyal Americans as if they had never known any other fealty or allegiance.
They will be prompt to stand with us in rebuking and restraining the few who may be of a different mind and purpose. If there
should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression; but, if it lifts its head at all, it will
lift it only here and there and without countenance except from a lawless and malignant few.

It is a distressing and oppressive duty, gentlemen of the Congress, which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are,
it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people
into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right
is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts--for democracy,
for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small
nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations
and make the world itself at last free.

To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride
of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that
gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.

Proceeding, fellow-citizens, to that qualification which the Constitution requires before my entrance on the charge again
conferred on me, it is my duty to express the deep sense I entertain of this new proof of confidence from my fellow-citizens
at large, and the zeal with which it inspires me so to conduct myself as may best satisfy their just expectations.

On taking this station on a former occasion I declared the principles on which I believed it my duty to administer the affairs
of our Commonwealth. My conscience tells me I have on every occasion acted up to that declaration according to its obvious
import and to the understanding of every candid mind.

In the transaction of your foreign affairs we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of
those with which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was
lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that
conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our
moral duties, and history bears witness to the fact that a just nation is trusted on its word when recourse is had to armaments
and wars to bridle others.

At home, fellow-citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless
establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These, covering our land with officers and opening
our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be
restrained from reaching successively every article of property and produce. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which
had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if
they had any merit, the State authorities might adopt them instead of others less approved.

The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries
to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile
citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a
tax gatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government, to fulfill
contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply
such a surplus to our public debts as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected the
revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition of it among the States and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution,
be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State.
In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be by increased
population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses
of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burthening them with the debts of the past. War will
then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.

I have said, fellow-citizens, that the income reserved had enabled us to extend our limits, but that extension may possibly
pay for itself before we are called on, and in the meantime may keep down the accruing interest; in all events, it will replace
the advances we shall have made. I know that the acquisition of Louisiana had been disapproved by some from a candid apprehension
that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle
may operate effectively? The larger our association the less will it be shaken by local passions; and in any view is it not
better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children than by strangers of another
family? With which should we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse?

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of
the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but
have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged
by the several religious societies.

The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires. Endowed with
the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left
them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from other regions directed itself on these shores;
without power to divert or habits to contend against it, they have been overwhelmed by the current or driven before it; now
reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter's state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts;
to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence and to prepare them in
time for that state of society which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. We have therefore liberally
furnished them with the implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them instructors in the arts of first
necessity, and they are covered with the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves.

But the endeavors to enlighten them on the fate which awaits their present course of life, to induce them to exercise their
reason, follow its dictates, and change their pursuits with the change of circumstances have powerful obstacles to encounter;
they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudices of their minds, ignorance, pride, and the influence of interested
and crafty individuals among them who feel themselves something in the present order of things and fear to become nothing
in any other. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ancestors; that whatsoever they did
must be done through all time; that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel in their physical, moral, or
political condition is perilous innovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them, ignorance being safety
and knowledge full of danger; in short, my friends, among them also is seen the action and counteraction of good sense and
of bigotry; they too have their antiphilosophists who find an interest in keeping things in their present state, who dread
reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the ascendancy of habit over the duty of improving our reason and obeying
its mandates.

In giving these outlines I do not mean, fellow-citizens, to arrogate to myself the merit of the measures. That is due, in
the first place, to the reflecting character of our citizens at large, who, by the weight of public opinion, influence and
strengthen the public measures. It is due to the sound discretion with which they select from among themselves those to whom
they confide the legislative duties. It is due to the zeal and wisdom of the characters thus selected, who lay the foundations
of public happiness in wholesome laws, the execution of which alone remains for others, and it is due to the able and faithful
auxiliaries, whose patriotism has associated them with me in the executive functions.

During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us,
charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and
science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. They might, indeed,
have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved to and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood
and defamation, but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been
left to find their punishment in the public indignation.

Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made, whether freedom of discussion, unaided
by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth-whether a government conducting itself in the true
spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness,
can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; you have witnessed the scene; our fellow-citizens
looked on, cool and collected; they saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their
public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable
to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes that he may be trusted with the control of
his own affairs.

No inference is here intended that the laws provided by the States against false and defamatory publications should not be
enforced; he who has time renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity in reforming these abuses by the salutary
coercions of the law; but the experiment is noted to prove that, since truth and reason have maintained their ground against
false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment
will correct false reasoning and opinions on a full hearing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between
the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule
would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion.

Contemplating the union of sentiment now manifested so generally as auguring harmony and happiness to our future course, I
offer to our country sincere congratulations. With those, too, not yet rallied to the same point the disposition to do so
is gaining strength; facts are piercing through the veil drawn over them, and our doubting brethren will at length see that
the mass of their fellow-citizens with whom they can not yet resolve to act as to principles and measures, think as they think
and desire what they desire; that our wish as well as theirs is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public
good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained,
and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his father's. When
satisfied of these views it is not in human nature that they should not approve and support them. In the meantime let us cherish
them with patient affection, let us do them justice, and more than justice, in all competitions of interest; and we need not
doubt that truth, reason, and their own interests will at length prevail, will gather them into the fold of their country,
and will complete that entire union of opinion which gives to a nation the blessing of harmony and the benefit of all its
strength.

I shall now enter on the duties to which my fellow-citizens have again called me, and shall proceed in the spirit of those
principles which they have approved. I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion
which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice, but the weaknesses of human nature and the limits of my own understanding
will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests. I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence which I
have heretofore experienced from my constituents; the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall
need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and
planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence
and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will
so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result
in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

Under Providence I have been called a second time to act as Executive over this great nation. It has been my endeavor in the
past to maintain all the laws, and, so far as lay in my power, to act for the best interests of the whole people. My best
efforts will be given in the same direction in the future, aided, I trust, by my four years' experience in the office.

When my first term of the office of Chief Executive began, the country had not recovered from the effects of a great internal
revolution, and three of the former States of the Union had not been restored to their Federal relations.

It seemed to me wise that no new questions should be raised so long as that condition of affairs existed. Therefore the past
four years, so far as I could control events, have been consumed in the effort to restore harmony, public credit, commerce,
and all the arts of peace and progress. It is my firm conviction that the civilized world is tending toward republicanism,
or government by the people through their chosen representatives, and that our own great Republic is destined to be the guiding
star to all others.

Under our Republic we support an army less than that of any European power of any standing and a navy less than that of either
of at least five of them. There could be no extension of territory on the continent which would call for an increase of this
force, but rather might such extension enable us to diminish it.

The theory of government changes with general progress. Now that the telegraph is made available for communicating thought,
together with rapid transit by steam, all parts of a continent are made contiguous for all purposes of government, and communication
between the extreme limits of the country made easier than it was throughout the old thirteen States at the beginning of our
national existence.

The effects of the late civil strife have been to free the slave and make him a citizen. Yet he is not possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it. This is wrong,
and should be corrected. To this correction I stand committed, so far as Executive influence can avail.

Social equality is not a subject to be legislated upon, nor shall I ask that anything be done to advance the social status
of the colored man, except to give him a fair chance to develop what there is good in him, give him access to the schools,
and when he travels let him feel assured that his conduct will regulate the treatment and fare he will receive.

The States lately at war with the General Government are now happily rehabilitated, and no Executive control is exercised
in any one of them that would not be exercised in any other State under like circumstances.

In the first year of the past Administration the proposition came up for the admission of Santo Domingo as a Territory of
the Union. It was not a question of my seeking, but was a proposition from the people of Santo Domingo, and which I entertained.
I believe now, as I did then, that it was for the best interest of this country, for the people of Santo Domingo, and all
concerned that the proposition should be received favorably. It was, however, rejected constitutionally, and therefore the
subject was never brought up again by me.

In future, while I hold my present office, the subject of acquisition of territory must have the support of the people before
I will recommend any proposition looking to such acquisition. I say here, however, that I do not share in the apprehension
held by many as to the danger of governments becoming weakened and destroyed by reason of their extension of territory. Commerce,
education, and rapid transit of thought and matter by telegraph and steam have changed all this. Rather do I believe that
our Great Maker is preparing the world, in His own good time, to become one nation, speaking one language, and when armies
and navies will be no longer required.

My efforts in the future will be directed to the restoration of good feeling between the different sections of our common
country; to the restoration of our currency to a fixed value as compared with the world's standard of values-gold-and, if
possible, to a par with it; to the construction of cheap routes of transit throughout the land, to the end that the products
of all may find a market and leave a living remuneration to the producer; to the maintenance of friendly relations with all
our neighbors and with distant nations; to the reestablishment of our commerce and share in the carrying trade upon the ocean;
to the encouragement of such manufacturing industries as can be economically pursued in this country, to the end that the
exports of home products and industries may pay for our imports-the only sure method of returning to and permanently maintaining
a specie basis; to the elevation of labor; and, by a humane course, to bring the aborigines of the country under the benign influences of education and civilization. It is either this or war of extermination: Wars
of extermination, engaged in by people pursuing commerce and all industrial pursuits, are expensive even against the weakest
people, and are demoralizing and wicked. Our superiority of strength and advantages of civilization should make us lenient
toward the Indian. The wrong inflicted upon him should be taken into account and the balance placed to his credit. The moral
view of the question should be considered and the question asked, Can not the Indian be made a useful and productive member
of society by proper teaching and treatment? If the effort is made in good faith, we will stand better before the civilized
nations of the earth and in our own consciences for having made it.

All these things are not to be accomplished by one individual, but they will receive my support and such recommendations to
Congress as will in my judgment best serve to carry them into effect. I beg your support and encouragement.

It has been, and is, my earnest desire to correct abuses that have grown up in the civil service of the country. To secure
this reformation rules regulating methods of appointment and promotions were established and have been tried. My efforts for
such reformation shall be continued to the best of my judgment. The spirit of the rules adopted will be maintained.

I acknowledge before this assemblage, representing, as it does, every section of our country, the obligation I am under to
my countrymen for the great honor they have conferred on me by returning me to the highest office within their gift, and the
further obligation resting on me to render to them the best services within my power. This I promise, looking forward with
the greatest anxiety to the day when I shall be released from responsibilities that at times are almost overwhelming, and
from which I have scarcely had a respite since the eventful firing upon Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, to the present day. My
services were then tendered and accepted under the first call for troops growing out of that event.

I did not ask for place or position, and was entirely without influence or the acquaintance of persons of influence, but was
resolved to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence of the nation. I performed a conscientious duty,
without asking promotion or command, and without a revengeful feeling toward any section or individual.

Notwithstanding this, throughout the war, and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close of the last Presidential
campaign, I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which to-day I feel that
I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict, which I gratefully accept as my vindication.

In August 1990 Iraqi forces invaded neighbouring Kuwait in an attempt to gain control of its oil reserves, prompting U.S.
President George Bush to direct a massive American military buildup in Saudi Arabia to protect against any further Iraqi aggression.
The Bush administration officially dubbed the defense of Saudi Arabia “Operation Desert Shield,” but the size and scope of
the American presence (more than 500,000 American troops had arrived in Saudi Arabia by January 1991) made it clear that a
powerful offensive capability existed for U.S. forces. Throughout the military buildup, American officials negotiated with
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in an effort to persuade him to withdraw from Kuwait. These efforts failed, as did a United
Nations' effort to mediate an Iraqi withdrawal. When the United Nations Security Council deadline of January 15, 1991, passed
without an Iraqi withdrawal, American and allied forces launched a massive six-week aerial bombardment that decimated Iraqi
supplies, troops, and fortifications in Kuwait and southern Iraq. Excerpts of Bush's speech announcing the opening of the
air campaign, known as “Operation Desert Storm,” are presented here.

Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak.
Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait--a member of the Arab
League and a member of the United Nations--was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this
cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined. . . .

As I report to you, air attacks are underway against military targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's
nuclear bomb potential. We will also destroy his chemical weapons facilities. Much of Saddam's artillery and tanks will be
destroyed. Our operations are designed to best protect the lives of all the coalition forces by targeting Saddam's vast military
arsenal. Initial reports from General Schwarzkopf are that our operations are proceeding according to plan.

Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored
to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions,
and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of
nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf.

Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some
effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies
concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own.
He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities--and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children.

While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he now possesses, an infinitely more dangerous
weapon of mass destruction--a nuclear weapon. And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam
Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.

While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage was being done to the fragile economies of the Third World, emerging
democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world, including to our own economy.

The United States, together with the United Nations, exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful
end. However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and threatening and defying the United Nations, he could weaken the forces
arrayed against him.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with open contempt. While the world prayed for peace, Saddam
prepared for war.

I had hoped that when the United States Congress, in historic debate, took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could
not prevail and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the United Nations resolutions. He did not do that. Instead, he remained
intransigent, certain that time was on his side.

Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the will of the United Nations: Leave Kuwait, or be driven out. Saddam
has arrogantly rejected all warnings. Instead, he tried to make this a dispute between Iraq and the United States of America.

Well, he failed. Tonight, 28 nations--countries from 5 continents, Europe and Asia, Africa, and the Arab League--have forces
in the Gulf area standing shoulder to shoulder against Saddam Hussein. These countries had hoped the use of force could be
avoided. Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make him leave.

Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as
quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women. I've
told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have
the best possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. I'm
hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum.

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war.
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order--a world where the rule
of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful--and we will be--we have a real
chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise
and vision of the U.N.'s founders.

We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our
goal is not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now,
convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving
nations.

Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: “These are the times that try men's souls.” Those well-known words are so very true today.
But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that
we will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can stand against a world united,
no nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor.

No President can easily commit our sons and daughters to war. They are the Nation's finest. Ours is an all-volunteer force,
magnificently trained, highly motivated. The troops know why they're there. . . .

And let me say to everyone listening or watching tonight: When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I am determined
to bring them home as soon as possible.

Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our prayers. May God bless each and every one of them, and the
coalition forces at our side in the Gulf, and may He continue to bless our nation, the United States of America.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, January 16, 1991.

Presidential advisers spent much of 1934 considering programs for unemployment compensation and old-age benefits--important
planks in the Democratic platform of 1932. Unemployment compensation created numerous problems, largely because of conflict
between advocates of a national plan and proponents of state-operated plans. Old-age insurance, having had no precedent in
state legislation, was generally deemed suitable for a uniform federal program. In the following message to Congress of January
17, 1935, President Roosevelt presented the administration's proposal for a social security act. A bill was finally passed
on August 14. Like most of the New Deal legislation, social security was challenged as unconstitutional, but in May 1937 the
Supreme Court upheld the major provisions of the law.

In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the
security of the men, women, and children of the nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an
essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the
form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of
recommending the basis of legislation.

I am gratified with the work of this committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board of Economic Security,
drawn from various departments of the government; the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public-spirited
private citizens; and a number of other advisory groups, including a Committee on Actuarial Consultants, a Medical Advisory
Board, a Dental Advisory Committee, a Hospital Advisory Committee, a Public Health Advisory Committee, a Child Welfare Committee,
and an Advisory Committee on Employment Relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major
legislative proposal are ready and willing at any time to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate congressional
committees and members with respect to detailed aspects.

It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary
to and conditioned upon the actions of states. Forty-four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary
state action may be taken promptly, it is important that the federal government proceed speedily.

The detailed report of the committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American
people. It has not attempted the impossible nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors
concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of states, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities,
and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.

It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of federal legislation
for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for
the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious
to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea--a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the
world have already adopted it, and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable
project.

Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. In the first place, the system adopted, except for the
money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should
not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to
the states, subject to standards established by the federal government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and
the reserves and protection of the credit structure of the nation should be assured by retaining federal control over all
funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.

At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:

Third, federal aid to dependent children through grants to states for the support of existing mother's pension systems and
for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.

Fourth, additional federal aid to state and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the federal Public Health
Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called health insurance, although groups representing the medical
profession are cooperating with the federal government in the further study of the subject, and definite progress is being
made.

With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should
be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory state unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this
is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all states cooperating with the federal government and to
promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the states. The 10 percent not thus offset should be
used to cover the costs of federal and state administration of this broad system. Thus, states will largely administer unemployment
compensation, assisted and guided by the federal government.

An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward
the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private
employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his
benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the
stabilization of private employment, federal legislation should not foreclose the states from establishing means for inducing
industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory
old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty
years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory
contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.
It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately
to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the
promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100 million.

The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent
consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future
depressions, but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions and we
can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and
a method of alleviation.

We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity--and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely
less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action
to attain the objectives sought in this report.

My fellow-citizens, no people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit
of boastfulness in our own strength, but with gratitude to the Giver of Good who has blessed us with the conditions which
have enabled us to achieve so large a measure of well-being and of happiness. To us as a people it has been granted to lay
the foundations of our national life in a new continent. We are the heirs of the ages, and yet we have had to pay few of the
penalties which in old countries are exacted by the dead hand of a bygone civilization. We have not been obliged to fight
for our existence against any alien race; and yet our life has called for the vigor and effort without which the manlier and
hardier virtues wither away. Under such conditions it would be our own fault if we failed; and the success which we have had
in the past, the success which we confidently believe the future will bring, should cause in us no feeling of vainglory, but
rather a deep and abiding realization of all which life has offered us; a full acknowledgment of the responsibility which
is ours; and a fixed determination to show that under a free government a mighty people can thrive best, alike as regards
the things of the body and the things of the soul.

Much has been given us, and much will rightfully be expected from us. We have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and
we can shirk neither. We have become a great nation, forced by the fact of its greatness into relations with the other nations
of the earth, and we must behave as beseems a people with such responsibilities. Toward all other nations, large and small,
our attitude must be one of cordial and sincere friendship. We must show not only in our words, but in our deeds, that we
are earnestly desirous of securing their good will by acting toward them in a spirit of just and generous recognition of all
their rights. But justice and generosity in a nation, as in an individual, count most when shown not by the weak but by the
strong. While ever careful to refrain from wrongdoing others, we must be no less insistent that we are not wronged ourselves.
We wish peace, but we wish the peace of justice, the peace of righteousness. We wish it because we think it is right and not
because we are afraid. No weak nation that acts manfully and justly should ever have cause to fear us, and no strong power
should ever be able to single us out as a subject for insolent aggression.

Our relations with the other powers of the world are important; but still more important are our relations among ourselves.
Such growth in wealth, in population, and in power as this nation has seen during the century and a quarter of its national
life is inevitably accompanied by a like growth in the problems which are ever before every nation that rises to greatness.
Power invariably means both responsibility and danger. Our forefathers faced certain perils which we have outgrown. We now
face other perils, the very existence of which it was impossible that they should foresee. Modern life is both complex and
intense, and the tremendous changes wrought by the extraordinary industrial development of the last half century are felt
in every fiber of our social and political being. Never before have men tried so vast and formidable an experiment as that
of administering the affairs of a continent under the forms of a Democratic republic. The conditions which have told for our
marvelous material well-being, which have developed to a very high degree our energy, self-reliance, and individual initiative,
have also brought the care and anxiety inseparable from the accumulation of great wealth in industrial centers. Upon the success
of our experiment much depends, not only as regards our own welfare, but as regards the welfare of mankind. If we fail, the
cause of free self-government throughout the world will rock to its foundations, and therefore our responsibility is heavy,
to ourselves, to the world as it is to-day, and to the generations yet unborn. There is no good reason why we should fear
the future, but there is every reason why we should face it seriously, neither hiding from ourselves the gravity of the problems
before us nor fearing to approach these problems with the unbending, unflinching purpose to solve them aright.

Yet, after all, though the problems are new, though the tasks set before us differ from the tasks set before our fathers who
founded and preserved this Republic, the spirit in which these tasks must be undertaken and these problems faced, if our duty
is to be well done, remains essentially unchanged. We know that self-government is difficult. We know that no people needs
such high traits of character as that people which seeks to govern its affairs aright through the freely expressed will of
the freemen who compose it. But we have faith that we shall not prove false to the memories of the men of the mighty past.
They did their work, they left us the splendid heritage we now enjoy. We in our turn have an assured confidence that we shall
be able to leave this heritage unwasted and enlarged to our children and our children's children. To do so we must show, not
merely in great crises, but in the everyday affairs of life, the qualities of practical intelligence, of courage, of hardihood,
and endurance, and above all the power of devotion to a lofty ideal, which made great the men who founded this Republic in
the days of Washington, which made great the men who preserved this Republic in the days of Abraham Lincoln.

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there
was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration
of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest
which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress
of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably
satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded
it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving
the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-seeking to dissolve the Union and
divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern
part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of
the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union
even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither
party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause
of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a
result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against
the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat
of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither
has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be
that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those
offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now
wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came,
shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to
Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that
it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and
until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years
ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive
on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his
widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

The will of the American people, expressed through their unsolicited suffrages, calls me before you to pass through the solemnities
preparatory to taking upon myself the duties of President of the United States for another term. For their approbation of
my public conduct through a period which has not been without its difficulties, and for this renewed expression of their confidence
in my good intentions, I am at a loss for terms adequate to the expression of my gratitude. It shall be displayed to the extent
of my humble abilities in continued efforts so to administer the Government as to preserve their liberty and promote their
happiness.

So many events have occurred within the last four years which have necessarily called forth-sometimes under circumstances
the most delicate and painful-my views of the principles and policy which ought to be pursued by the General Government that
I need on this occasion but allude to a few leading considerations connected with some of them.

The foreign policy adopted by our Government soon after the formation of our present Constitution, and very generally pursued
by successive Administrations, has been crowned with almost complete success, and has elevated our character among the nations
of the earth. To do justice to all and to submit to wrong from none has been during my Administration its governing maxim,
and so happy have been its results that we are not only at peace with all the world, but have few causes of controversy, and
those of minor importance, remaining unadjusted.

In the domestic policy of this Government there are two objects which especially deserve the attention of the people and their
representatives, and which have been and will continue to be the subjects of my increasing solicitude. They are the preservation
of the rights of the several States and the integrity of the Union.

These great objects are necessarily connected, and can only be attained by an enlightened exercise of the powers of each within
its appropriate sphere in conformity with the public will constitutionally expressed. To this end it becomes the duty of all
to yield a ready and patriotic submission to the laws constitutionally enacted, and thereby promote and strengthen a proper
confidence in those institutions of the several States and of the United States which the people themselves have ordained
for their own government.

My experience in public concerns and the observation of a life somewhat advanced confirm the opinions long since imbibed by
me, that the destruction of our State governments or the annihilation of their control over the local concerns of the people
would lead directly to revolution and anarchy, and finally to despotism and military domination. In proportion, therefore,
as the General Government encroaches upon the rights of the States, in the same proportion does it impair its own power and
detract from its ability to fulfill the purposes of its creation. Solemnly impressed with these considerations, my countrymen
will ever find me ready to exercise my constitutional powers in arresting measures which may directly or indirectly encroach
upon the rights of the States or tend to consolidate all political power in the General Government. But of equal, and, indeed,
of incalculable, importance is the union of these States, and the sacred duty of all to contribute to its preservation by
a liberal support of the General Government in the exercise of its just powers. You have been wisely admonished to "accustom
yourselves to think and speak of the Union as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation
with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly
frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred
ties which now link together the various parts." Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved;
without union they never can be maintained. Divided into twenty-four, or even a smaller number, of separate communities, we
shall see our internal trade burdened with numberless restraints and exactions; communication between distant points and sections
obstructed or cut off; our sons made soldiers to deluge with blood the fields they now till in peace; the mass of our people
borne down and impoverished by taxes to support armies and navies, and military leaders at the head of their victorious legions
becoming our lawgivers and judges. The loss of liberty, of all good government, of peace, plenty, and happiness, must inevitably
follow a dissolution of the Union. In supporting it, therefore, we support all that is dear to the freeman and the philanthropist.

The time at which I stand before you is full of interest. The eyes of all nations are fixed on our Republic. The event of
the existing crisis will be decisive in the opinion of mankind of the practicability of our federal system of government.
Great is the stake placed in our hands; great is the responsibility which must rest upon the people of the United States.
Let us realize the importance of the attitude in which we stand before the world. Let us exercise forbearance and firmness.
Let us extricate our country from the dangers which surround it and learn wisdom from the lessons they inculcate.

Deeply impressed with the truth of these observations, and under the obligation of that solemn oath which I am about to take,
I shall continue to exert all my faculties to maintain the just powers of the Constitution and to transmit unimpaired to posterity
the blessings of our Federal Union. At the same time, it will be my aim to inculcate by my official acts the necessity of
exercising by the General Government those powers only that are clearly delegated; to encourage simplicity and economy in
the expenditures of the Government; to raise no more money from the people than may be requisite for these objects, and in
a manner that will best promote the interests of all classes of the community and of all portions of the Union. Constantly
bearing in mind that in entering into society "individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest," it will
be my desire so to discharge my duties as to foster with our brethren in all parts of the country a spirit of liberal concession
and compromise, and, by reconciling our fellow-citizens to those partial sacrifices which they must unavoidably make for the
preservation of a greater good, to recommend our invaluable Government and Union to the confidence and affections of the American
people.

Finally, it is my most fervent prayer to that Almighty Being before whom I now stand, and who has kept us in His hands from
the infancy of our Republic to the present day, that He will so overrule all my intentions and actions and inspire the hearts
of my fellow-citizens that we may be preserved from dangers of all kinds and continue forever a united and happy people.

In obedience to the will of the people, and in their presence, by the authority vested in me by this oath, I assume the arduous
and responsible duties of President of the United States, relying upon the support of my countrymen and invoking the guidance
of Almighty God. Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly
favored the American people in every national trial, and who will not forsake us so long as we obey His commandments and walk
humbly in His footsteps.

The responsibilities of the high trust to which I have been called-always of grave importance-are augmented by the prevailing
business conditions entailing idleness upon willing labor and loss to useful enterprises. The country is suffering from industrial
disturbances from which speedy relief must be had. Our financial system needs some revision; our money is all good now, but
its value must not further be threatened. It should all be put upon an enduring basis, not subject to easy attack, nor its
stability to doubt or dispute. Our currency should continue under the supervision of the Government. The several forms of
our paper money offer, in my judgment, a constant embarrassment to the Government and a safe balance in the Treasury. Therefore
I believe it necessary to devise a system which, without diminishing the circulating medium or offering a premium for its
contraction, will present a remedy for those arrangements which, temporary in their nature, might well in the years of our
prosperity have been displaced by wiser provisions. With adequate revenue secured, but not until then, we can enter upon such
changes in our fiscal laws as will, while insuring safety and volume to our money, no longer impose upon the Government the
necessity of maintaining so large a gold reserve, with its attendant and inevitable temptations to speculation. Most of our
financial laws are the outgrowth of experience and trial, and should not be amended without investigation and demonstration
of the wisdom of the proposed changes. We must be both "sure we are right" and "make haste slowly." If, therefore, Congress,
in its wisdom, shall deem it expedient to create a commission to take under early consideration the revision of our coinage,
banking and currency laws, and give them that exhaustive, careful and dispassionate examination that their importance demands,
I shall cordially concur in such action. If such power is vested in the President, it is my purpose to appoint a commission
of prominent, well-informed citizens of different parties, who will command public confidence, both on account of their ability
and special fitness for the work. Business experience and public training may thus be combined, and the patriotic zeal of
the friends of the country be so directed that such a report will be made as to receive the support of all parties, and our
finances cease to be the subject of mere partisan contention. The experiment is, at all events, worth a trial, and, in my
opinion, it can but prove beneficial to the entire country.

The question of international bimetallism will have early and earnest attention. It will be my constant endeavor to secure
it by co-operation with the other great commercial powers of the world. Until that condition is realized when the parity between
our gold and silver money springs from and is supported by the relative value of the two metals, the value of the silver already
coined and of that which may hereafter be coined, must be kept constantly at par with gold by every resource at our command.
The credit of the Government, the integrity of its currency, and the inviolability of its obligations must be preserved. This
was the commanding verdict of the people, and it will not be unheeded.

Economy is demanded in every branch of the Government at all times, but especially in periods, like the present, of depression
in business and distress among the people. The severest economy must be observed in all public expenditures, and extravagance
stopped wherever it is found, and prevented wherever in the future it may be developed. If the revenues are to remain as now,
the only relief that can come must be from decreased expenditures. But the present must not become the permanent condition
of the Government. It has been our uniform practice to retire, not increase our outstanding obligations, and this policy must
again be resumed and vigorously enforced. Our revenues should always be large enough to meet with ease and promptness not
only our current needs and the principal and interest of the public debt, but to make proper and liberal provision for that
most deserving body of public creditors, the soldiers and sailors and the widows and orphans who are the pensioners of the
United States.

The Government should not be permitted to run behind or increase its debt in times like the present. Suitably to provide against
this is the mandate of duty-the certain and easy remedy for most of our financial difficulties. A deficiency is inevitable
so long as the expenditures of the Government exceed its receipts. It can only be met by loans or an increased revenue. While
a large annual surplus of revenue may invite waste and extravagance, inadequate revenue creates distrust and undermines public
and private credit. Neither should be encouraged. Between more loans and more revenue there ought to be but one opinion. We
should have more revenue, and that without delay, hindrance, or postponement. A surplus in the Treasury created by loans is
not a permanent or safe reliance. It will suffice while it lasts, but it can not last long while the outlays of the Government
are greater than its receipts, as has been the case during the past two years. Nor must it be forgotten that however much
such loans may temporarily relieve the situation, the Government is still indebted for the amount of the surplus thus accrued,
which it must ultimately pay, while its ability to pay is not strengthened, but weakened by a continued deficit. Loans are
imperative in great emergencies to preserve the Government or its credit, but a failure to supply needed revenue in time of
peace for the maintenance of either has no justification.

The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes-not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out
of debt-through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both. It is the settled policy
of the Government, pursued from the beginning and practiced by all parties and Administrations, to raise the bulk of our revenue
from taxes upon foreign productions entering the United States for sale and consumption, and avoiding, for the most part,
every form of direct taxation, except in time of war. The country is clearly opposed to any needless additions to the subject
of internal taxation, and is committed by its latest popular utterance to the system of tariff taxation. There can be no misunderstanding,
either, about the principle upon which this tariff taxation shall be levied. Nothing has ever been made plainer at a general
election than that the controlling principle in the raising of revenue from duties on imports is zealous care for American
interests and American labor. The people have declared that such legislation should be had as will give ample protection and
encouragement to the industries and the development of our country. It is, therefore, earnestly hoped and expected that Congress
will, at the earliest practicable moment, enact revenue legislation that shall be fair, reasonable, conservative, and just,
and which, while supplying sufficient revenue for public purposes, will still be signally beneficial and helpful to every
section and every enterprise of the people. To this policy we are all, of whatever party, firmly bound by the voice of the
people-a power vastly more potential than the expression of any political platform. The paramount duty of Congress is to stop
deficiencies by the restoration of that protective legislation which has always been the firmest prop of the Treasury. The
passage of such a law or laws would strengthen the credit of the Government both at home and abroad, and go far toward stopping
the drain upon the gold reserve held for the redemption of our currency, which has been heavy and well-nigh constant for several
years.

In the revision of the tariff especial attention should be given to the re-enactment and extension of the reciprocity principle
of the law of 1890, under which so great a stimulus was given to our foreign trade in new and advantageous markets for our
surplus agricultural and manufactured products. The brief trial given this legislation amply justifies a further experiment
and additional discretionary power in the making of commercial treaties, the end in view always to be the opening up of new
markets for the products of our country, by granting concessions to the products of other lands that we need and cannot produce
ourselves, and which do not involve any loss of labor to our own people, but tend to increase their employment.

The depression of the past four years has fallen with especial severity upon the great body of toilers of the country, and
upon none more than the holders of small farms. Agriculture has languished and labor suffered. The revival of manufacturing
will be a relief to both. No portion of our population is more devoted to the institution of free government nor more loyal
in their support, while none bears more cheerfully or fully its proper share in the maintenance of the Government or is better
entitled to its wise and liberal care and protection. Legislation helpful to producers is beneficial to all. The depressed
condition of industry on the farm and in the mine and factory has lessened the ability of the people to meet the demands upon
them, and they rightfully expect that not only a system of revenue shall be established that will secure the largest income
with the least burden, but that every means will be taken to decrease, rather than increase, our public expenditures. Business
conditions are not the most promising. It will take time to restore the prosperity of former years. If we cannot promptly
attain it, we can resolutely turn our faces in that direction and aid its return by friendly legislation. However troublesome
the situation may appear, Congress will not, I am sure, be found lacking in disposition or ability to relieve it as far as
legislation can do so. The restoration of confidence and the revival of business, which men of all parties so much desire,
depend more largely upon the prompt, energetic, and intelligent action of Congress than upon any other single agency affecting
the situation.

It is inspiring, too, to remember that no great emergency in the one hundred and eight years of our eventful national life
has ever arisen that has not been met with wisdom and courage by the American people, with fidelity to their best interests
and highest destiny, and to the honor of the American name. These years of glorious history have exalted mankind and advanced
the cause of freedom throughout the world, and immeasurably strengthened the precious free institutions which we enjoy. The
people love and will sustain these institutions. The great essential to our happiness and prosperity is that we adhere to
the principles upon which the Government was established and insist upon their faithful observance. Equality of rights must
prevail, and our laws be always and everywhere respected and obeyed. We may have failed in the discharge of our full duty
as citizens of the great Republic, but it is consoling and encouraging to realize that free speech, a free press, free thought,
free schools, the free and unmolested right of religious liberty and worship, and free and fair elections are dearer and more
universally enjoyed to-day than ever before. These guaranties must be sacredly preserved and wisely strengthened. The constituted
authorities must be cheerfully and vigorously upheld. Lynchings must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like
the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of
discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon
which our Government securely rests.

One of the lessons taught by the late election, which all can rejoice in, is that the citizens of the United States are both
law-respecting and law-abiding people, not easily swerved from the path of patriotism and honor. This is in entire accord
with the genius of our institutions, and but emphasizes the advantages of inculcating even a greater love for law and order
in the future. Immunity should be granted to none who violate the laws, whether individuals, corporations, or communities;
and as the Constitution imposes upon the President the duty of both its own execution, and of the statutes enacted in pursuance
of its provisions, I shall endeavor carefully to carry them into effect. The declaration of the party now restored to power
has been in the past that of "opposition to all combinations of capital organized in trusts, or otherwise, to control arbitrarily
the condition of trade among our citizens," and it has supported "such legislation as will prevent the execution of all schemes
to oppress the people by undue charges on their supplies, or by unjust rates for the transportation of their products to the
market." This purpose will be steadily pursued, both by the enforcement of the laws now in existence and the recommendation
and support of such new statutes as may be necessary to carry it into effect.

Our naturalization and immigration laws should be further improved to the constant promotion of a safer, a better, and a higher
citizenship. A grave peril to the Republic would be a citizenship too ignorant to understand or too vicious to appreciate
the great value and beneficence of our institutions and laws, and against all who come here to make war upon them our gates
must be promptly and tightly closed. Nor must we be unmindful of the need of improvement among our own citizens, but with
the zeal of our forefathers encourage the spread of knowledge and free education. Illiteracy must be banished from the land
if we shall attain that high destiny as the foremost of the enlightened nations of the world which, under Providence, we ought
to achieve.

Reforms in the civil service must go on; but the changes should be real and genuine, not perfunctory, or prompted by a zeal
in behalf of any party simply because it happens to be in power. As a member of Congress I voted and spoke in favor of the
present law, and I shall attempt its enforcement in the spirit in which it was enacted. The purpose in view was to secure
the most efficient service of the best men who would accept appointment under the Government, retaining faithful and devoted
public servants in office, but shielding none, under the authority of any rule or custom, who are inefficient, incompetent,
or unworthy. The best interests of the country demand this, and the people heartily approve the law wherever and whenever
it has been thus administrated.

Congress should give prompt attention to the restoration of our American merchant marine, once the pride of the seas in all
the great ocean highways of commerce. To my mind, few more important subjects so imperatively demand its intelligent consideration.
The United States has progressed with marvelous rapidity in every field of enterprise and endeavor until we have become foremost
in nearly all the great lines of inland trade, commerce, and industry. Yet, while this is true, our American merchant marine
has been steadily declining until it is now lower, both in the percentage of tonnage and the number of vessels employed, than
it was prior to the Civil War. Commendable progress has been made of late years in the upbuilding of the American Navy, but
we must supplement these efforts by providing as a proper consort for it a merchant marine amply sufficient for our own carrying
trade to foreign countries. The question is one that appeals both to our business necessities and the patriotic aspirations
of a great people.

It has been the policy of the United States since the foundation of the Government to cultivate relations of peace and amity
with all the nations of the world, and this accords with my conception of our duty now. We have cherished the policy of non-interference
with affairs of foreign governments wisely inaugurated by Washington, keeping ourselves free from entanglement, either as
allies or foes, content to leave undisturbed with them the settlement of their own domestic concerns. It will be our aim to
pursue a firm and dignified foreign policy, which shall be just, impartial, ever watchful of our national honor, and always
insisting upon the enforcement of the lawful rights of American citizens everywhere. Our diplomacy should seek nothing more
and accept nothing less than is due us. We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression.
War should never be entered upon until every agen